In re Interest of A.R., 14–1204.
Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 14–1204.,14–1204. |
Citation | 865 N.W.2d 619 |
Parties | In the Interest of A.R., D.R., J.C. and J.C., Minor Children, A.M., Mother, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Erin M. Carr of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michael Chenoweth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Deborah Johnson, Altoona, for father of D.R. and A.R.
William Sales of Sales Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for father of J.C. and J.C.
Charles Fuson of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by POTTERFIELD, P.J., and TABOR and MULLINS, JJ.
The mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to four children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2013).1 Although the State petitioned for termination on six different statutory grounds, the juvenile court terminated the mother's rights pursuant to subsection (1)(d) only. Because the record does not show by clear and convincing evidence that there was a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) adjudication in a prior proceeding or that there was a nonaccidental injury to any of the children in the current CINA proceeding, we reverse the termination of the parental rights of the mother.
In this case, the State alleged the statutory grounds for termination were Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f), (g), (h), (k) and (l ). The juvenile court summarized the procedural background of the case as follows:
After identifying the children and the parents, the court made these findings:
Upon that backdrop, the court reviewed the requirements of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)-(3) and provided this analysis:
The Court concludes the State has proven subsection d is met as the statutory ground supporting termination as to the Mother [ ] and termination of her parental rights. The same statutory ground is deemed met as to Father [of the younger children] as it relates to his parental rights to his two children named herein. In the interests of time and finality the Court deems it most prudent to simply rely upon this statutory ground. The Court does not find or consider this to be a close case.
Additional facts and background will be developed below.
We review termination of parental rights de novo. In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). We will uphold an order terminating parental rights where there is clear and convincing evidence of the statutory grounds for termination. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010). Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or substantial doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions of law drawn from the evidence. Id.
For the mother's first issue on appeal, she argues: “The State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Mother was offered or received services to correct the circumstances which led to the adjudication or that the circumstances still exist despite the offering or receipt of services.” Her argument focuses on her claims that the visitation arrangements were inadequate to allow her to demonstrate her parenting skills and to progress toward reunification with her children.
In order to determine what circumstances led to the adjudication and required correction, we look to the adjudication order. The juvenile court made findings of fact which included:
The court did not specify under which paragraph of section 232.2(6) it found the children were CINA.3 On our de novo review we have examined the exhibits identified in the findings of fact. Exhibit 1 is a Child Protective Service Assessment Summary as to children Jo.C. and Ja.C. The report was founded as to both children for denial of critical care and failure to provide proper supervision. Exhibit 2 is a Child Protective Service Assessment Summary as to children D.R., Ja.C., Jo.C., and A.R. The report concludes the allegation of denial of critical care, failure to provide proper supervision is confirmed; the allegation of physical abuse is not confirmed; and the allegation of “allows access to obscene material” is not confirmed.
Pursuant to the terms of the adjudication order and the exhibits referenced in the order, the circumstances which existed at the time of the adjudication were denial of critical care and failure to provide proper supervision. This would seem to support a CINA determination under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n). These sections provide a child in need of assistance is a child:
Iowa Code § 232.6.
The court at adjudication made no finding of physical abuse or neglect or imminent likelihood of abuse or neglect as would be required under section 232.2(6)(b) ; and on our de novo review we find none. We next focus on whether the CINA findings with which we agree—denial of critical care and failure to provide proper supervision—could satisfy the requirements of a section 232.116(1)(d) termination.
In a CINA case, not a termination case, our supreme court explained: “a CINA determination under section 232.2(6)(b)4 may lead to termination of parental rights under section 232.116(1)(d), whereas a CINA determination under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) cannot.” In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2014). In J.S., the court was concerned with deciding the imminent likelihood of physical harm for a CINA determination under section 232.2(6)(b). As part of its analysis, the court explained:
Section 232.116(1)(d) requires that “[t]he court has previously adjudicated the child to be in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected.” Applying the definition of “physical abuse or neglect” from section 232.2(42) as explained in J.S., to our section 232.116(1)(d) analysis, it is plain to see that a termination under (d) requires a physical injury.5 In other words, we may not rely on the term “or neglected,” as the supreme court has explained that the term of art “physical abuse or neglect” requires a nonaccidental physical injury.6
Even if we were to assume the juvenile court's CINA...
To continue reading
Request your trial