IN THE INTEREST OF W.D., Minor Child, B.D., Father, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H.
Liesveld, District Associate Judge.
father appeals the modification of the permanency goal in a
J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
F. Trachta of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids,
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
father appeals the juvenile court's modification of the
permanency goal in the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA)
case placing the child in the mother's custody. The
father claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to continue the second day of the
permanency hearing. We find the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion in refusing to grant the father's motion.
Background Facts & Proceedings
father, and J.D., mother, are the parents of W.D., born in
2009. In 2011, the parents divorced and the child was placed
in the father's sole custody with sobriety-related
conditions for the mother's visitation.
about October 3, 2017, the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS) removed the child from the father's custody
following the father's arrest on suspicion of domestic
abuse with his paramour witnessed by the child. Both the father
and his paramour were very intoxicated. The father and
paramour's frequent intoxication and assaultive behavior
had resulted in several calls to police and a prior overnight
removal of the child in September.
parties stipulated the child was a CINA as alleged in the
State's petition. On October 12, the court adjudicated
the child as CINA pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(c)(1), (c)(2), and (n) (2017). The child was placed
with the mother, who is sober and has a safe and stable home
for the child. The father was ordered to complete
mental-health and substance-abuse evaluations and to follow
the recommendations. He completed the evaluations but did not
complete recommended treatments and falsely reported to DHS
January 2018, a communication plan was established between
the father, DHS, and social workers. The plan was deemed
necessary due to excessive calls and emails from the father.
The father behaved erratically, deteriorating to the point of
verbal abuse toward the workers supervising his visits, lying
about his availability for visits and phone calls, and lying
to the child. The father missed multiple visits with the
child, blaming his absence on vehicle problems, work
conflicts, the State workers cancelling the visits, and other
unverified excuses. The father's visits and phone calls
are supervised by multiple persons due to the father's
dishonesty and threatening behaviors.
March, the mother applied to change the CINA permanency goal
to maintain the child with her and requested concurrent
jurisdiction for a related custody action. In late July,
approximately one week before the permanency hearing began,
the police were called to the father's house multiple