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 W.D.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 23, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF W.D., Minor Child, B.D., Father, Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.

         A father appeals the modification of the permanency goal in a child-in-need-of-assistance case.

          John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father.

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

          Julie 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.

          BOWER, JUDGE.

         A 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.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         B.D., 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.

         On or 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.[1] 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.

         The 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 his participation.

         In 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.

         In 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 ...


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.