In the Interest of C.P., Minor Child, H.L., Mother
16-1459
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- C.P., an eight-year-old with epilepsy, ADHD, autism, and significant behavioral needs, was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) after the mother failed to ensure consistent seizure medication and follow-up care.
- The July 2015 adjudication allowed C.P. to remain with the mother subject to court-ordered services, including ensuring medical appointments, medication management, and Parent/Child Interaction Training (PCIT).
- Over 18+ months of services the mother showed some improvement but remained inconsistent in medicating C.P., had incidents of alleged physical discipline, and struggled to apply parenting training. DHS concluded available services were exhausted.
- The father, who previously had mental-health issues, had stabilized and planned to live with his parents who have experience managing children with similar needs; DHS recommended placement with the father contingent on that living arrangement.
- The juvenile court modified the dispositional order, removing C.P. from the mother’s care and placing him with the father, finding the mother could not adequately parent despite services, the child could not be protected without transfer, and continued placement with the mother would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in modifying placement from mother to father | Mother: No material change in circumstances since adjudication to justify removal; she is improving and removal unnecessary | State: Mother’s partial improvements were insufficient after prolonged services; child still at risk without transfer | Court: Modification proper — mother’s limited progress after extensive services constituted material change and justified transfer |
| Whether evidence showed removal was necessary for child’s safety | Mother: No evidence child needed removal; she could care for him | State: Multiple incidents and inconsistent medication created safety risk; adequate placement available with father | Court: Clear and convincing evidence child could not be protected without transfer; removal necessary |
| Whether placement with father was improper because DHS conditioned recommendation on father living with his parents | Mother: DHS recommendation conditioned on father living with parents; court didn’t impose that condition so placement improper | State: Father’s plan and support network provided adequate placement; court made best-interest finding | Court: Placement with father affirmed as in child’s best interest despite DHS’s conditional recommendation |
| Applicable legal standard for modifying dispositional orders in CINA cases | Mother: (implicit) modification requires strict justification including change in circumstances | State: Modification may occur under Iowa Code §232.103(4) and §232.102(5) where purposes cannot be accomplished and protection requires transfer | Court: Affirmed requirement to find material and substantial change in circumstances (court follows precedent), but also notes concurrence disagrees on necessity of that showing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14 (Iowa 2008) (standard of review in CINA proceedings is de novo)
- In re R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821 (Iowa 1991) (discusses requirement of material and substantial change in circumstances for modifying custody)
- In re Leehey, 317 N.W.2d 513 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982) (adopted the material and substantial change requirement for modification in juvenile custody contexts)