Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Potterfield, J.
A mother appeals from a child in need of assistance dispositional order. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
A mother, S.F., appeals from a child in need of assistance (CINA) dispositional order regarding her youngest child, J.G. She contends the juvenile court erred in finding there was clear and convincing evidence J.G. suffered or was imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of an instance of domestic violence. She also argues the services ordered by the court are unnecessary and overly restrictive. We affirm, finding the juvenile court properly adjudicated J.G. a child in need of assistance, and that the services offered were in the child's best interests.
J.G. was born in March of 2012. In July of 2012, his mother called police to their home, reporting domestic abuse. When police officers arrived, S.F. was crying and upset, holding J.G. A.G., J.G.'s father, was present, carrying a pair of scissors. S.F. told officers to "[h]elp me, he is going to kill me." She reported to the police that A.G. had attacked her: he hit her, threatened to stab her with scissors, and broke her phone when she attempted to contact police.
A.G. has a history of domestic abuse and child endangerment. He was arrested following the July incident and charged with child endangerment, domestic abuse assault while displaying a weapon, and obstruction of a 911 emergency communication. A caseworker from the department of human services (DHS) was assigned to evaluate whether J.G. was subject to harm by the domestic abuse incident. The report was founded against A.G., a CINA petition was filed, and an adjudicatory hearing was conducted October 31, 2012.
At the hearing, S.F. testified that J.G. was not exposed to the domestic abuse incident, that J.G. was in the bedroom while the fight took place in the living room, that she was more afraid for A.G. than herself, and that she accidentally hung up the phone after calling 911. She also testified that A.G. had pushed her in the past and threatened to kill her. She likewise reported being a victim of domestic abuse in a past relationship after the birth of one of her other children.
Testimony was also given by the DHS worker assigned to J.G., a child protective services worker, and three police officers who responded to S.F.'s call the day of the domestic abuse incident. They reported that on the day of the incident, S.F. was afraid for her life, that she reported the scissors being removed from her bag while she and J.G. were in her bedroom, that her cellphone had been broken by J.G.'s father, that the couple had been arguing all day, and that J.G.'s father had threatened to harm others and then commit suicide. The officers' testimony correlated with a written abuse report given by S.F. the same day, which disclosed that J.G.'s father also had threatened her with a weapon a month prior.
The court adjudicated J.G. CINA, finding S.F.'s testimony at the hearing unpersuasive and unreliable as it contradicted her reports to the officers the day of the incident. The court also found that, though S.F. did not want further involvement by the Department and felt she was sufficiently protected by a no-contact order, the serious nature of the events and history of domestic violence warranted continued protective supervision through CINA adjudication. The court kept J.G. in his mother's care and ordered no contact between the child and father while the criminal no-contact order was in place.
On November 26, 2012, a dispositional hearing was held. In its order following the hearing, the court ordered J.G. to remain in S.F.'s care, custody and control. It also ordered her to meet with a domestic violence counselor, and ordered the family to participate in Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) services. J.G.'s father was also ordered to participate in services. S.F. appeals from this order, arguing there is no clear and convincing evidence to support the CINA adjudication and that the services ordered are overly restrictive and unnecessary.
We review CINA proceedings de novo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We review the facts and law and adjudicate rights anew, giving weight to the fact findings of the court-especially regarding the credibility of witnesses. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990). However, we are not bound by these findings. Id. The ...