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 A.M.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

May 2, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M. and A.M., Minor Children, S.M., Father, Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.

         A father appeals from the dispositional order confirming the removal of his children from his care.

          Christine L. Sand of Wild, Baxter & Sand, P.C., Guthrie Center, for appellant father.

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

          Yvonne C. Naanep, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor children.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.

          DANILSON, CHIEF JUDGE.

         A father appeals from the dispositional order confirming the removal of his children from his care. He contends he has complied with all of the juvenile court's requirements and objects to the court's order that he obtain a hair-stat test. Upon our de novo review, see In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014), we find no reason to disturb the juvenile court's dispositional order. We therefore affirm.

         In mid-2016, the children-a boy, age ten, and a girl, age four-came to the attention of the department of human services (DHS) due to methamphetamine use by their mother and a lack of proper supervision by their father. There was no custody order between the parents but the mother allowed the children to reside with the father, and the mother entered substance-abuse treatment.[1]Unfortunately, the father was distrustful of DHS involvement. DHS asked that he provide a hair-stat test, which he refused.

         On June 9, 2017, both parents were ordered to undergo hair-stat tests on Monday, June 12, and submit the results to DHS. They were also ordered to cooperate with the Family Safety, Risk, and Permanency (FSRP) worker. On June 23, an order for ex parte removal was entered after the court found the

mother's hair stat test showed positive results which were higher than expected; the father has not complied with a drug test as previously agreed. The children could not be placed with a non-custodial parent because both parents are involved. The children could not be placed with another relative because other appropriate relatives are unknown.

         On June 27, a hearing was held at which the father agreed to allow service providers to come into his home. The court ruled the father "did not comply with the court's order to get a hair stat test" but found "there is no evidence of drug use" by the father. At the hearing, the court told DHS to accept the urinalysis (UA) results from samples provided by the father to his employer. The court's written order also provided: "[T]he court orders that the child be returned to [the father's] custody immediately; he is still ordered to obtain a hair stat test, from the provider of his choice, with results to be provided to the court by July 12, 2017."

         A child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) adjudication hearing was scheduled but was continued a number of times.

         In August, the father was allowing FSRP service providers into his home. The father was told the mother was not to provide unsupervised care of the children. At the CINA adjudication hearing on September 6, the father contested the adjudication, and the hearing was rescheduled for October 24.

         Despite agreeing not to allow the mother to be with the children unsupervised, DHS learned the mother was providing unsupervised care for the children. DHS social worker Sheila Aunspach informed the father DHS would be seeking a removal order for the children. The father did not attend work for the next several days and pulled the children out of school. A removal order issued on October 23, but the children's whereabouts were unknown.

         The father did appear for the October 24 adjudication hearing and, upon questioning by the court, the father informed the court the children were at his home. He had left the children there without adult supervision.

         Social worker Ashley Laughlin, who had been the case manager until September, testified:

April to July [2017] mom would not address her substance abuse issue and said she no longer had a problem and was reporting that she was the one taking care of the kids when dad was at work. I believe it was in July that we asked for a hair test. That hair test came back positive for methamphetamine.
Q. Was that for mom?
A. That was for mom, yes.
Q. Does it cause you concerns that the mother was watching the children at this point?
A. It did at the time. However, the father reported that he did not know what things to look for with methamphetamine use. It concerned me that mom had put her children in that position. It concerned me that the father who has known this woman for ten plus years didn't know what any of her real indicators looked like.
Q. Did the children's mother indicate that she had a history of methamphetamine use?
A. The children's mother ...

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.