IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1922 Filed February 20, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., D.R., and H.R., Minor Children,
R.J.R., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals a permanency order placing his two children in a
guardianship. AFFIRMED.
Blake D. Lubinus of Lubinus Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A father appeals a permanency order placing his two children, born in 2004
and 2005, in a guardianship.1 He contends (A) the record lacks clear and
convincing evidence to support the grounds for a guardianship and a guardianship
is not in the children’s best interest; (B) the district court should not have entered
a dispositional order without the benefit of a social investigation report; (C) his
attorney was ineffective in failing to appeal the dispositional order; and (D) the
district court erred in denying his motion to enlarge and amend its findings and
conclusions.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The case began after law enforcement officers visited a home to conduct a
welfare check. They found the house to be “uninhabitable.” According to a report,
it “was in complete disarray and filthy,” with “[t]rash . . . everywhere” and an
“overwhelming,” “foul odor,” of “trash, feces, and urine.” The toilet “consisted of a
five-gallon pail with a hole in the lid.” The kitchen was filled with “numerous
containers of spoiled food and unknown substances.” The house lacked
continuous running water and electricity, which were dependent on a manually-
activated backyard generator. Following the inspection, law enforcement officers
contacted the department of human services about the children in the home.
The district court ordered the children to be temporarily removed. They
were placed with a relative. The State subsequently petitioned to have them
adjudicated in need of assistance. At the adjudicatory hearing, the department
1 A third child has a different father and is not a subject of this appeal. 3
case manager testified the mother had “a considerable history of approximately
three years-ish of methamphetamine use” and the children saw both parents using
the drug. The district court adjudicated the children in need of assistance.
At a later dispositional hearing, the father stipulated to all but one of the
department’s recommendations. Specifically, the father agreed to continued
adjudication of the children as in need of assistance; continued placement of the
children with the relative; and participation in reunification services including
mental health and substance-abuse counseling, and scheduled visitation, pursuit
of sobriety, and maintenance of an appropriate living environment. He reserved
one issue which, in his view, implicated the department’s obligation to make
reasonable reunification efforts. The district court confirmed the adjudication and
left the children in the relative’s care. Following another hearing, the court rejected
the parents’ challenge to the State’s reunification efforts. In the end, the court filed
a permanency order transferring custody and guardianship of the children to the
relative. The court reasoned “the age of the children, bond established, and
potential loss of public benefits and inheritance” militated in favor of this option
rather than termination of parental rights. The father appealed.2
II. Analysis
A. Grounds for Guardianship
Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(d)(1) (2017) allows a court to enter a
permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of a child to a suitable
person. Ordinarily, this option is not preferred over the termination of parental
2 The mother’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely petition on appeal. 4
rights. See In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). But the best
interests of a child may warrant exercise of the option. Id. at 34.
The father takes issue with the following findings of the district court: (1) the
parents were offered certain reunification services; (2) the parents did not request
additional services; (3) the parents continued to struggle with issues that prompted
the children’s removal; (4) the parents did not make parenting their children a
priority; and (5) the children’s preference to remain where they were was given
outsized value. On our de novo review, we are not persuaded by these
contentions, which we will address together.
At the hearing on the parents’ reasonable-efforts motion, the department
case worker testified the department had “probably gone above and beyond the
time frame and what we’ve done as compared to the average case.” We concur
in this assessment.
The department offered the father six drug tests to confirm his sobriety.
The father submitted to the first two, testing positive for methamphetamine on both.
He declined to provide samples for the remaining four. Although he “attempted to
attend substance abuse therapy” at several facilities, the department reported that
he “continued to show behaviors throughout the life of this case that has brought
concerns of continued usage.”
The department also offered the father supervised visits with his children.
When the father sought expansion of these visits, the case worker responded that
compliance with drug testing was a prerequisite. The department additionally
expressed concern with the father’s behavior at visits. For example, the
caseworker reported the father minimized illegal behavior when speaking to his 5
children, recorded the children during visits, accused the children of being
disrespectful and of stealing the family cat, and spoke to the children with hostility.
In light of these behaviors, we conclude the department did not violate its
reasonable-efforts mandate by declining to expand visits.
The department provided other services as well, including individual and
family counseling. Although the department curtailed family therapy sessions after
discovering the therapist had a conflict of interest, reinstatement of the sessions
was stymied by the father’s unwillingness to follow through with drug testing. As
the caseworker testified, the father’s “refusal to comply with requested drug testing
does not allow for reasonable assurance that [the parents] are actively working on
recovery and are able to safely parent without the use of drugs.” This barrier to
reunification diminished the utility of family therapy.
We recognize the department caseworker also considered the children’s
reluctance to engage in family therapy when he decided not to search for another
family therapist. Contrary to the father’s assertion, this was a permissible
consideration, given the ages of the children. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1922 Filed February 20, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., D.R., and H.R., Minor Children,
R.J.R., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
A father appeals a permanency order placing his two children in a
guardianship. AFFIRMED.
Blake D. Lubinus of Lubinus Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant
father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
M. Kathryn Miller of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
A father appeals a permanency order placing his two children, born in 2004
and 2005, in a guardianship.1 He contends (A) the record lacks clear and
convincing evidence to support the grounds for a guardianship and a guardianship
is not in the children’s best interest; (B) the district court should not have entered
a dispositional order without the benefit of a social investigation report; (C) his
attorney was ineffective in failing to appeal the dispositional order; and (D) the
district court erred in denying his motion to enlarge and amend its findings and
conclusions.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The case began after law enforcement officers visited a home to conduct a
welfare check. They found the house to be “uninhabitable.” According to a report,
it “was in complete disarray and filthy,” with “[t]rash . . . everywhere” and an
“overwhelming,” “foul odor,” of “trash, feces, and urine.” The toilet “consisted of a
five-gallon pail with a hole in the lid.” The kitchen was filled with “numerous
containers of spoiled food and unknown substances.” The house lacked
continuous running water and electricity, which were dependent on a manually-
activated backyard generator. Following the inspection, law enforcement officers
contacted the department of human services about the children in the home.
The district court ordered the children to be temporarily removed. They
were placed with a relative. The State subsequently petitioned to have them
adjudicated in need of assistance. At the adjudicatory hearing, the department
1 A third child has a different father and is not a subject of this appeal. 3
case manager testified the mother had “a considerable history of approximately
three years-ish of methamphetamine use” and the children saw both parents using
the drug. The district court adjudicated the children in need of assistance.
At a later dispositional hearing, the father stipulated to all but one of the
department’s recommendations. Specifically, the father agreed to continued
adjudication of the children as in need of assistance; continued placement of the
children with the relative; and participation in reunification services including
mental health and substance-abuse counseling, and scheduled visitation, pursuit
of sobriety, and maintenance of an appropriate living environment. He reserved
one issue which, in his view, implicated the department’s obligation to make
reasonable reunification efforts. The district court confirmed the adjudication and
left the children in the relative’s care. Following another hearing, the court rejected
the parents’ challenge to the State’s reunification efforts. In the end, the court filed
a permanency order transferring custody and guardianship of the children to the
relative. The court reasoned “the age of the children, bond established, and
potential loss of public benefits and inheritance” militated in favor of this option
rather than termination of parental rights. The father appealed.2
II. Analysis
A. Grounds for Guardianship
Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(d)(1) (2017) allows a court to enter a
permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of a child to a suitable
person. Ordinarily, this option is not preferred over the termination of parental
2 The mother’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely petition on appeal. 4
rights. See In re B.T., 894 N.W.2d 29, 33 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). But the best
interests of a child may warrant exercise of the option. Id. at 34.
The father takes issue with the following findings of the district court: (1) the
parents were offered certain reunification services; (2) the parents did not request
additional services; (3) the parents continued to struggle with issues that prompted
the children’s removal; (4) the parents did not make parenting their children a
priority; and (5) the children’s preference to remain where they were was given
outsized value. On our de novo review, we are not persuaded by these
contentions, which we will address together.
At the hearing on the parents’ reasonable-efforts motion, the department
case worker testified the department had “probably gone above and beyond the
time frame and what we’ve done as compared to the average case.” We concur
in this assessment.
The department offered the father six drug tests to confirm his sobriety.
The father submitted to the first two, testing positive for methamphetamine on both.
He declined to provide samples for the remaining four. Although he “attempted to
attend substance abuse therapy” at several facilities, the department reported that
he “continued to show behaviors throughout the life of this case that has brought
concerns of continued usage.”
The department also offered the father supervised visits with his children.
When the father sought expansion of these visits, the case worker responded that
compliance with drug testing was a prerequisite. The department additionally
expressed concern with the father’s behavior at visits. For example, the
caseworker reported the father minimized illegal behavior when speaking to his 5
children, recorded the children during visits, accused the children of being
disrespectful and of stealing the family cat, and spoke to the children with hostility.
In light of these behaviors, we conclude the department did not violate its
reasonable-efforts mandate by declining to expand visits.
The department provided other services as well, including individual and
family counseling. Although the department curtailed family therapy sessions after
discovering the therapist had a conflict of interest, reinstatement of the sessions
was stymied by the father’s unwillingness to follow through with drug testing. As
the caseworker testified, the father’s “refusal to comply with requested drug testing
does not allow for reasonable assurance that [the parents] are actively working on
recovery and are able to safely parent without the use of drugs.” This barrier to
reunification diminished the utility of family therapy.
We recognize the department caseworker also considered the children’s
reluctance to engage in family therapy when he decided not to search for another
family therapist. Contrary to the father’s assertion, this was a permissible
consideration, given the ages of the children. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478
(Iowa 2018) (distinguishing affirmance of guardianship in In re B.T. on the ground
that the ten-year-old child in that case wished to continue a relationship with his
mother).
Based on this record, the district court could have terminated the father’s
parental rights to the children. The court opted not to invoke this remedy in the
hopes that the parent-child relationship, however fraught, might repair itself over
time. The court’s decision is in the children’s best interests. On our de novo 6
review, we conclude the district court appropriately transferred guardianship and
custody of the children to the relative.
B. Dispositional Order
The father next asserts the district court “erred when it entered a
dispositional order without receiving a social investigation and report pursuant to
Iowa Code section 232.97.” The State responds that the father failed to appeal
the dispositional order and thereby waived any claim of error. We agree. See In
re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 475 (Iowa 1981).
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The father next contends his attorney was ineffective in failing to appeal the
dispositional order. See Strickland v. Washintgon, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); In re
D.W., 385 N.W.2d 570, 580 (Iowa 1986). The father must establish deficient
performance and prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
In the father’s view, deficient performance was established by counsel’s
failure to insist on receipt of a social investigation report prior to entry of the
dispositional order. He is correct that Iowa Code section 232.97 precludes the
district court from making “a disposition of the petition until five working days after
a social report has been submitted to the court and counsel for the child and has
been considered by the court.” He is also correct that the record contains no
indication that a social investigation report was prepared or received. We do not
condone the department’s failure to comply with section 232.97. But the father
cannot establish Strickland prejudice.
The department caseworker testified the purpose of the report was “to get
the background information on past histories and possible family issues.” He said 7
he learned about matters that would have been covered in the report from other
sources. For example, he learned about the strained relationship between the
father and the relative with whom his children were placed, knew the father’s
educational background, and spoke to the father about his “past issues.” He
opined those matters appeared elsewhere in the record. Because the caseworker
knew the father’s background and issues, we conclude there was no probability of
a different result had counsel appealed the dispositional order and challenged the
State’s noncompliance with section 232.97.
D. Motion to Enlarge
The father moved to enlarge the district court’s findings and conclusions.
He essentially challenged the district court’s fact findings mentioned in Part A
above and the State’s noncompliance with section 232.97, discussed in Part C.
The district court summarily denied the motion.
On appeal, the father contends denial of the motion was “in err[or].” Having
addressed the issues he raised in the motion, we find no reason to consider this
brief point further. To the extent the father’s motion to enlarge addressed issues
not raised on appeal, those issues have been waived.
We affirm the district court’s permanency order placing guardianship of the
children with the relative.
AFFIRMED.