IN THE INTEREST OF J.D., T.D., CD., D.D., and E.R., Minor Child, S.B., Mother, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Amy L.
Zacharias, District Associate Judge.
mother appeals the juvenile court order temporarily removing
her children from her care. AFFIRMED.
M. Hart of Reisinger, Booth, and Associates, P.C., L.L.O.,
Omaha, Nebraska, for appellant mother.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
L. Mailander of Mailander Law Office, Anita, guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
mother appeals the order temporarily removing her children
from her care. We find the children were properly removed
pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.102(5)(a) (2017). We affirm
the juvenile court.
Background Facts and Proceedings
five children in this case ranged in age from three to twelve
at the time of the removal hearing. In April 2017, the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) received a report of
physical abuse against the father of four of the children.
The father was arrested and charged with child endangerment.
The mother and father were no longer in a relationship at the
time of the incident. However, during the course of the
investigation, it was discovered the mother's boyfriend,
W.B., who lived in the mother's home with the children,
was a registered sex offender. DHS and law enforcement informed
the mother and W.B. and he was required to leave the home.
Two days later, the mother and W.B. married in order to avoid
approximately one month, the mother and W.B. signed a safety
plan requiring W.B. to leave the home. The children made
statements to the caseworker they wanted W.B. to come back to
the home and that his victim had been lying about the abuse.
Near the end of May, the children were adjudicated to be
children in need of assistance (CINA), and a no-contact order
between W.B. and all of the children was entered. The mother
did not understand why the no-contact order was entered and
why allowing W.B. around the children presented a safety
concern. It was also discovered the mother was pregnant with
W.B.'s child. However, the children were allowed to
remain in the care of the mother.
immediately suspicious W.B. still had contact with the
children, though it had no proof. The juvenile court
specifically reminded the mother any violation of the
no-contact order would result in the children being removed
from her care. W.B. was pulled over in a traffic stop
approximately two weeks later, and the mother and all five
children were in the car with him. An ex-parte removal order
was filed July 12, 2017. The juvenile court noted, the mother
"now claims she will not allow contact between [W.B.]
and the children and will do whatever is necessary to have
her children returned to her care. Given [her] behaviors to
this point, the Court finds that the children are not safe in
her care and should be temporarily removed."
children were placed in foster care, and the mother was
granted supervised visitation. The mother complied with the
case-plan requirements, but DHS remained concerned about her
continued relationship with W.B. When the mother was directly
asked by the juvenile court if she was comfortable allowing
her children to have contact with a sex offender, she did not
directly answer the question. Instead she noted W.B. planned
to appeal his conviction and that she had spoken to some of
W.B.'s children and they believed his victim lied about