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 D.R.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

May 17, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., Minor Child, C.M., Mother, Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adams County, Monty W. Franklin, District Associate Judge.

         A mother appeals the juvenile court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings. AFFIRMED.

          Bryan J. Tingle of Tingle Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.

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

          Jane A. Orlanes of Orlanes Law Office, P.L.C., for minor child.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.

          BOWER, Judge.

         A mother appeals the juvenile court's adjudicatory and dispositional orders in a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding. We find the juvenile court properly denied the mother's motion to dismiss, the CINA adjudication was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's request for a suspended judgment. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         On July 30, 2016, C.M. appeared at an emergency room with her son, D.R., stating they were both covered with bugs. No bugs were seen by emergency room personnel or a social worker from the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). C.M. was given a drug test, which was positive for methamphetamine and oxycodone. D.R., who was six years old, is autistic, nonverbal, and hyperactive. The social worker discussed removal of the child because it was unsafe for C.M. to care for him at that time. C.M. voluntarily agreed to have the child placed in foster care.

         An ex parte temporary removal order was filed on August 2. On August 8, the mother revoked her consent for removal of the child. On August 10, the State filed a CINA petition. The mother filed a motion to dismiss the CINA proceedings, claiming the CINA petition was untimely under Iowa Code section 232.78(3) (2016), because it was not filed within three days after the temporary removal order. The juvenile court entered an order stating:

The Court finds that good cause exists for the delay in the filing of the Petition herein based upon the fact that the initial removal was made with the consent of the mother of the child and the Removal Order simply confirmed the voluntary placement agreement of the child's mother; that it was reasonable for the State to assume that it was not necessary to file a Petition herein within the three day time limit as there was an agreement by the child's custodial parent, the child's mother, that removal was appropriate and consented to by the custodial parent; and that when Notice of the Revocation of that voluntary placement was filed herein by the child's mother, the State did then in fact file the Petition herein within two days after the filing of the Notice. The Court further finds that the child's parents have not been prejudiced by the short delay in the filing of the Petition herein for the reasons set out above.

         The court determined the child was properly removed from the mother's care.

         The mother had a hair test, which was positive for amphetamine but not methamphetamine. The mother stated she was positive for amphetamine due to a prescription medication. The juvenile court adjudicated the child a CINA, pursuant to section 232.2(6)(c)(2), finding there was clear and convincing evidence the mother was under the influence of a substance on July 31 and her erratic behavior placed the child at risk. The court ...


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.