Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re M.T.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

March 8, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF M.T., Minor Child, W.T., Father, Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Julie A. Schumacher, District Associate Judge.

         A father appeals from an order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding placing his child in a guardianship.

          John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant father.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Joseph W. Kertels, Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, for minor child.

          Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.

          BOWER, Judge.

         A father appeals from an order in a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding placing his child, M.T., in a guardianship. We find it would not be in the child's best interests to give the father an additional six months to work toward reunification with the child. We affirm the juvenile court decision placing M.T. in a guardianship.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         The father and mother are the parents of M.T., born in 2006.[1] The family came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) in October 2015 due to concerns about lack of cleanliness in the home and the possibility of physically abuse. The child was removed from the parents' care on December 18, 2015, and placed with a maternal aunt and uncle. At the time both parents were unemployed and homeless, and the mother and M.T. were living with a known sex offender.

         The child was adjudicated CINA pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (f), and (g) (2015). The father remained unemployed. He obtained some income from selling plasma and lived in a one-bedroom apartment. The father attended therapy. He was inconsistent in attending supervised visits with the child.

         A permanency hearing was held on December 12, 2016. The juvenile court determined M.T. should be placed in a guardianship with the maternal aunt and uncle and the guardianship should be transferred to the probate division of the district court. The court determined after the guardianship was established the juvenile case would be closed. The court found the father did not have the means to provide for the child and had not demonstrated an ability to care for the child on a consistent basis. The court denied the father's request for an additional six months to work toward reunification with the child, finding the child needed permanency and there was no evidence to support a finding the father would be able to care for the child in six months. The father appeals the CINA permanency order.

         II. Standard of Review

         Our review in CINA proceedings is de novo. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). "In reviewing the proceedings, we are not bound by the juvenile court's fact findings; however, we do give them weight." Id. "As in all juvenile proceedings, our fundamental concern is the best interest of the child." In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). Allegations in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.