Opinion
No. 2-931 / 02-0764
Filed February 12, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Donavon D. Schaefer, District Associate Judge.
Mother appeals an order continuing juvenile court jurisdiction and transferring her daughter's custody to father. AFFIRMED.
Michael Johnson of Stoller Johnson, Spirit Lake, for appellant-mother.
John Greer of Greer Law Office, Spencer, for father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Zenor, County Attorney, and Charles Borth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
James Hastings, Milford, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
This appeal involves a child in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding, which was taking place simultaneously with an ongoing dissolution modification action involving the same parties — parents Brady and Tom and children Libby and Sam. In particular, a CINA review order from which Brady appeals denied her motion to terminate juvenile court jurisdiction and modified the dispositional order by transferring Libby's physical care to Tom, while ordering Sam's custody to remain with Brady.
We note the juvenile court had granted concurrent jurisdiction to the district court.
Our review of an action arising from CINA proceedings is de novo. In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). The focal point is the best interests of the children. See In re C.G., 444 N.W.2d 518, 520 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989).
The Iowa Code vests the decision to terminate juvenile court jurisdiction within the discretion of the juvenile court. See Iowa Code§ 232.103(4) (2001) ("The court may terminate an order and release the child if the court finds that the . . . child is no longer in need of supervision, care or treatment.") (emphasis added). Considering evidence that the children were still in need of social services and that the actions of the parents continued to frustrate progress, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to terminate juvenile court jurisdiction.
Furthermore, on our de novo review, we believe the court properly placed Libby's physical care with Tom. See In re C.D. 509 N.W.2d at 511 (noting the circumstances in which a modification of a dispositional order may be appropriate). Importantly, the modification merely ratified an extended visitation arrangement upon which the parties had previously agreed and was, at least for the time being, proving successful. Moreover, the court was presented with evidence Sam had been physically abusive toward Libby, that Brady may fail to promote a healthy relationship between Libby and Tom, and that Libby may be safer from emotional harm in Tom's home. Like the court below, we refuse to upset the fragile peace in this family by further modifying the custodial situation, while waiting for the district court to hear evidence and make its custodial ruling.