IN THE INTEREST OF L.H., J.H., C.H., and D.H., Minor Children, D.H., Mother, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily
Dean, District Associate Judge.
mother of children adjudicated in need of assistance appeals
from a permanency review order.
P. Schier of Cray Law Firm, Burlington, for appellant mother.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
D. Van Winkle of Van Winkle Law Office, Burlington, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.
mother of four children adjudicated in need of assistance
appeals from a permanency review order, claiming the juvenile
court erred in ordering a six-month extension and continued
removal of the children. Upon our review, we affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings
family moved from Tennessee to Iowa in February 2018. In
April, the children came to the attention of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) due to concerns of
physical abuse, neglect, and drug use by the parents. A DHS
caseworker reported the children were in need of medical and
dental treatment, had never attended school, were not being
fed properly, and had not received any immunizations. The
children were removed from the parents' custody. In June,
the juvenile court entered an order adjudicating the children
in need of assistance (CINA) and numerous services were
offered to the parents for reunification with the children.
time of the permanency hearing in April 2019, DHS recommended
the parents be given a six-month extension "to allow
them to progress to reunification." DHS also recommended
the children remain in family foster care. Following the
hearing, the juvenile court entered its permanency order,
granting the parents an additional six months to achieve
reunification. The mother appealed from that order.
the mother's appeal, the State filed a motion for limited
remand to address the question of subject matter jurisdiction
under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act
(UCCJEA). The supreme court granted the State's motion
and remanded to the juvenile court "to determine whether
Iowa has the proper jurisdiction for hearing these [CINA]
cases or whether Iowa is limited to temporary emergency
jurisdiction." On remand, the juvenile court entered an
order determining Iowa has temporary emergency jurisdiction
under Iowa Code section 598B.204(1) (2018). The supreme court
then transferred the case to our court for disposition.
Standard of Review
review permanency orders de novo, sorting through both the
facts and law and adjudicating rights anew on the issues
properly presented on appeal. In re A.T.,
799 N.W.2d 148, 150–51 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). We give
weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court but are
not bound by them. Id. We review ...