In the Interest of J.M., No. 3-916/03-1804 (Iowa App. 12/10/2003)

• Decision Date: 10 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 3-916/03-1804,3-916/03-1804
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., Minor Child, P.R., Mother, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 1

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., Minor Child, P.R., Mother, Appellant.

No. 3-916/03-1804

Court of Appeals of Iowa

Filed December 10, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, District Associate Judge.

P.R. appeals from the permanency order placing her child in long-term foster care. AFFIRMED.

Stephen Newport of Newport & Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant-mother.

Christine Frederick of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods & Frederick, Davenport, for minor child, J.M.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

John Molyneaux, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.

HUITINK, P.J.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Penny is Justin's mother. Justin was born on August 30, 1989. In May 2001 Penny requested assistance from the Department of Human Services because Justin threatened other family members with a knife. Justin was removed from Penny's custody and briefly placed in a psychiatric hospital. The resulting psychological evaluation and home studies indicated Justin had been physically and sexually abused. Justin was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and reactive attachment disorder of childhood. As a result, Justin was adjudicated a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(f) (parent unwilling or unable to provide child's needed treatment for serious mental illness). Justin was placed in a "treatment level" foster home, and ultimately in a residential treatment facility.

Psychological evaluations also disclosed Penny's history of abusive relationships. She denied or minimized Justin's abuse and refused to acknowledge any causal relationship between Justin's abuse and mental health issues. Despite the department's efforts to assist Penny, she continued her relationship with men responsible for abusing both her and Justin.

Penny was diagnosed with an adjustment and personality disorder. Although she participated in individual therapy to address these issues, Penny declined to disclose needed information about the results. Penny's history of confrontation with social workers assigned to Justin's case was reportedly an impediment to successful visitation. As a result, the department changed its permanency goals for Justin from alternative living to long-term foster care.

On October 3, 2003, the juvenile court conducted a permanency hearing in anticipation of Justin's release from residential treatment in November 2003. The department reiterated its permanency goal for Justin's placement in long-term foster care. The juvenile court rejected Penny's demands for Justin's return to her custody, stating:

The mother seems to be plagued by the same thinking errors, behaviors and attitudes that she has exhibited since at least 1991. The Court is dubious about the mother's commitment to services. Her attitude appears to be to expect that the Court will fix or mend Justin so he can come home while she sees minimal responsibility to change herself.

The court also determined that termination of Penny's parental rights was not in Justin's best interests and placed Justin in long-term foster care. The court's permanency order also made provisions for Penny's continued visitation with Justin.

Penny has appealed, claiming it is in Justin's best interests to be placed in her home. Justin has joined in Penny's appeal.

II. Standard of Review

Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. See In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Our paramount concern is the best interest of the child. In re D.S., 437 N.W.2d 587, 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989).

III. Merits

Penny contends it is in Justin's best interests to be returned to her custodial care. She claims her past experience provides no justification for continuing Justin's foster care now that Justin's mental health issues have been addressed and he will be discharged from residential treatment. We disagree.

Our primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re T.B., 604 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 2000). In considering a child's best interests, we look to the child's long-range, as well as immediate interests. In re C.K., 558...