IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0131 Filed March 25, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., Minor Child,
E.S., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals from the juvenile court order modifying the dispositional
order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.
Jessica L. Wiebrand, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney,
General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Rick Sole of Sole
& McManus, P.C., for appellee State.
Angela Railsback, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
DOYLE, J.
A mother appeals the modification of a dispositional order removing her
child from her care, though she does not specifically challenge the juvenile
court’s determination that modification was in order. Rather, she takes issue with
the court’s decision to transfer the child’s custody from her to the Iowa
Department of Human Services (Department) for placement of the child in the
care of a non-relative family with whom the child has been residing with the
mother’s prior permission. The mother maintains the family has interfered with
her relationship with her child, and she requests the child be moved to a new
foster family, against the child’s wishes. She also asserts the court erred in
finding the Department provided reasonable services “to maintain [the child] in
the mother’s care and custody.” Upon our de novo review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
E.S. is the mother of J.S., born in 2003. The mother herself had a
challenging childhood, and she immigrated to the United States as an adult. The
mother married the child’s father in 2002, and their marriage was fraught with
physical and emotional abuse of each other, and sometimes, their children.1
In April 2007, the Department became involved with the parents after it
was reported that the father physically abused the child. Specifically, the
Department determined that during a fight between the parents, the father put a
jump rope around the child’s neck, threatened to choke the child, and then pulled
1 The child’s father is not involved in this appeal, but his and the mother’s history are relevant to the issues raised here. Additionally, we note the mother and the father both have other children from separate relationships not at issue in this appeal. The mother’s oldest child was born in 2001, her youngest in 2011. 3
the child around by the rope. This resulted in petechiae around the child’s neck,
but the child was not otherwise physically injured. Thereafter, the mother moved
out and took the child with her. A no-contact order was put in place between the
parents, and both parents agreed to participate in voluntary services with the
Department. The parents remained separated thereafter, and they finally
divorced in 2011.
In May 2007, the father made allegations that the mother was abusing the
child, but the report was not confirmed by the Department. The State
subsequently filed a petition asserting the child was a child in need of assistance
(CINA). At some point, the child was adjudicated CINA.
In September 2007, the Department confirmed a report of physical abuse
by the mother against the child after the mother left claw marks on the child’s arm
after grabbing it. The child initially reported she was scratched by a cat, but the
mother later admitted she had caused the scratches, claiming she accidentally
grabbed the child’s arm too hard. However, a physician opined that the child’s
injuries “were significant,” “could not be caused by accidental grabbing,” and
“were intentional.” There were other abuse allegations, but only this particular
report was confirmed by the Department. The mother again agreed to participate
in services and signed a safety plan that she would refrain from using physical
means to discipline the child.
In 2010, the Department received a report that the mother had left the
child, then six-years-old, at home alone with her eight-month-old sibling. The
mother admitted she had left the children home alone but claimed it was only for
a “couple of minutes.” She also denied it had happened before, but the child 4
recalled at least another instance, which was confirmed by the mother’s
paramour. The Department determined the report that the mother had denied
the child critical care was founded. The mother and her paramour agreed they
would not leave the children alone again.
New allegations of abuse by the mother were asserted a month later after
the child had a large scratch on her face by her eye, and neither the mother nor
her paramour knew how the child had acquired the scratch. The abuse report
was not confirmed, but the mother and her paramour signed a safety plan stating
again that they would not leave the children without supervision at any time.
The child was under the supervision of the juvenile court and the
Department from 2007 to the summer of 2011, when the CINA case was
dismissed. However, it appears there was little oversight of the family during that
time, and despite the numerous abuse allegations and findings, the child and her
siblings were never removed from the mother’s care. The juvenile court
explained
the latter stages of [those CINA] proceedings . . . remained open largely to assure stability in the placement for the child while [the] parents litigated their divorce and obtained permanent custody and visitation orders for [the child]. Although the juvenile court orders provided for [the mother] to be [the child’s] primary custodian, with [the father] having a plan for visitation, the parents reached an agreement in district court that placed [the child] in the primary care of her father, and final custody orders were entered in May or June of 2011.
Even though the mother failed to follow the juvenile court’s orders concerning
obtaining custody of the child, the CINA proceedings were dismissed shortly after
the decree was entered. The Department’s case worker and the child’s guardian
ad litem (GAL) both signed off on placement of the child with the father because 5
the father was the parent following the case plan at that time, making sure the
child got to medical, dental, and therapy appointments.
Just after the dismissal, while the child was living with the father, it was
alleged the father had sexually assaulted his paramour’s thirteen-year-old
daughter. A criminal investigation commenced thereafter, and the Department
was concerned about the child being in the father’s custody, particularly after a
container stored in the child’s closet was discovered containing the father’s sex
toys and a pair of a small child’s Dora the Explorer underwear. Following the
criminal investigation, the father was charged with and ultimately convicted of
multiple counts of possession of child pornography, and he is presently
incarcerated in federal prison.
After the Department learned of the allegations against the father, the
child was removed from the father’s care and placed in the mother’s custody,
where she legally remained until 2014. The child was again adjudicated a CINA,
and the mother was directed to continue the child’s therapy, given all that had
happened. The mother did not believe the child needed therapy, and her
contribution in seeing that the child received treatment was sporadic, at best.
However, the mother did enroll the child in a community mentoring
program after the child was placed in her care in 2011. There, the child met and
began a relationship with a participating family (“Family”). With the mother’s
permission, the Family enrolled the child in extracurricular activities, paying for
and taking the child to and from the activities. At times, the mother was not
home when they went to return the child home—without any advance notice to
the Family—so the Family took the child home with them. With the mother’s 6
permission and occasionally at her request, the child began spending more and
more time with the Family. The child went camping with the Family. The child
spent holidays with the Family. The child went with the Family out-of-state for a
week-long trip in March 2013. This was all done while under Department and
court supervision, though permission was not sought by the mother. At the same
time, the Department had so little contact with the mother it never discovered the
child’s connection with the Family. The Family did not even know at that time
there was any involvement by the Department or the juvenile court.
By January of 2014, the child was staying with the Family regularly with
the mother’s permission. The mother did not pack clothes or toiletries for the
child; the Family had to provide that on their own and did so willingly. The Family
even attended the child’s school conference in 2014. The child took another
week-long trip with the Family in March of 2014, and it was at that time the
Family learned the Department was involved in the child’s life, though they were
unclear as to the extent of the involvement. The Family made various vacation
plans for the summer of 2014, and the mother consented to the child travelling
with them. By the end of the school year, the child had lived with the Family
more during that year than she had at her mother’s home.
After school ended in June 2014, the child began living with the Family
full-time. Shortly thereafter, the Department learned the child had been living
with the Family. The Department subsequently filed an ex-parte request for the
child’s immediate removal from the mother’s care, asserting the child was at
imminent risk of harm in her mother’s custody due to the mother’s lack of follow
through with the child’s therapy and the mother’s decision to let the child live with 7
the Family, among other things. The court denied the Department’s request,
finding the Department did not establish the child was in imminent danger, but it
referred the matter to the State for possible filing of an application to modify the
dispositional order, which the State did in July 2014.
The Family continued on with their summer vacation plans, taking the
child with them with the permission of the mother. While travelling, the Family
had spotty cell-phone coverage. The mother was displeased with the timeliness
and content of the responses she received from the Family and the child while
gone, though she had been told about the cell-reception issue. Shortly after they
returned home in August 2014, the mother called to talk to the child, and their
conversation ended with the child crying and refusing to talk to the mother. The
mother then sent a text message to the Family saying she wanted the child home
now, and the child refused. Thereafter, the mother showed up at the Family’s
home with her other children demanding the child be returned to her and
screaming at the Family. The Family called the Department’s case worker; the
mother called the police department asserting the child had been kidnapped by
the Family.
The case worker spoke with the child after she arrived at the Family’s
home, and the child was in her room crying, “very upset and emotional.” She told
the worker she was scared of her mother and her older sibling, stating they had
hurt her in the past and she was afraid to go home. That day, the worker filed
another application for removal of the child from the mother’s care, and the
juvenile court subsequently entered a temporary removal order placing the child 8
in the Department’s custody and authorizing placement of the child with the
Family, with the mother having supervised visitation with the child.
The child had two visits with the mother in August that went well, for the
most part. However, at some point, the child stated she did not want to have
visits with the mother. Ultimately, the Department determined the child did not
have to go to the visits if she did not want to, and the visits were basically
stopped. The mother began sending numerous angry text messages to the
Family, using foul language and calling the Family foul names, and their
relationship further deteriorated. Additionally, therapy was reinitiated by the
Department, but the mother was generally uncooperative, causing delays in
getting the child’s therapy restarted. The child eventually began attending
individual therapy and family therapy with the mother.
A new case worker for the Department was assigned in or about
September 2014 and that worker noted the visitation was court ordered and
could not be stopped based upon the refusal of the now eleven-year-old child.
Visits were then “restarted,” but the child was still permitted to choose whether or
not she would go to the visit. The child declined to go every time.
By the time the hearing on the application commenced in October 2014,
the child had begun addressing the mother by her first name and adamantly
wanted no contact with the mother or her siblings. At the conclusion of the first
day of the hearing, the court ordered that visitation continue, and the court spoke
to the child about the need for the visits and informed the child visitation was not
a choice. The child requested the time she spent with the mother in family
therapy be counted as her visitation time, and the court declined the child’s 9
request, stating the child needed to have some visitation with the mother outside
of therapy.
Visitation between the child and mother and the child’s siblings resumed,
but the child wanted nothing to do with the mother or her siblings. The child
refused to give the mother hugs when requested. The mother and child also
fought during their family therapy sessions.
At the October hearing dates, both the prior and present case workers for
the Department, as well as the mother’s service provider, testified. The prior
case worker believed the child was at imminent risk of danger for numerous
reasons, including the child’s allegations, but she admitted she had no contact
with the mother from September 2013 to April 2014. That worker testified the
mother was extremely difficult to get a hold of, but neither the new case worker
nor the service provider had any difficulties reaching her. Based on the child’s
allegations and the mother’s leaving the child with the Family, the prior worker
believed removing the child from the Family’s care was not in the child’s best
interests, testifying that much family therapy was required to get the child to a
place where she felt safe with her mother. The worker did not believe the Family
had interfered with the mother’s relationship with the child but were rather looking
out for the child’s best interests and the child’s wishes. Additionally, the worker
recommended the mother have a mental health evaluation.
The new case worker testified, but she had had little involvement in the
case at that point. However, she did not think the Family had interfered with the
mother and child’s relationship. She testified the Family had been cooperative,
and they were “thrown for a loop when all of the sudden they became the bad 10
guys in this scenario, and they just felt like they did everything that they could to
help support [the child and the mother] and it kind of fell apart over the summer.”
She testified she thought the Family was “doing their best to understand the court
process, but sometimes things get miscommunicated or they don’t always fully
understand what [the Department’s] process is or how things work, but . . . they
are doing their best.”
The service provider who had been involved with the mother and child
since 2013 disagreed. She testified she had not observed a strain in the mother
and child’s relationship before the August 2014 removal, but since, the child had
become “very shut down and very negative” with the mother and her siblings.
The provider testified she believed the child’s change of behavior was because
the child had been put in the middle of the conflict between the mother and the
Family. The provider did not feel the mother had contributed to putting the child
in the middle, testifying she believed the Family was “partially responsible” and
had “somewhat” interfered with the reunification process. The provider pointed to
a recent “incident” where a visit was set up between the mother and child with
the Family for later in the day and the Family was to have the child ready to go.
But, when the provider went to pick the child up three hours later, the visit had
been forgotten and the child was not ready to go—the child was actually at the
park with a friend. The provider admitted the child was immediately retrieved
from the park by the Family for the visit. Additionally, the provider admitted she
only spent from twenty minutes to an hour in the mother’s home once a month
and may not have been fully aware of all of the issues and problems occurring in
the home. The provider pointed to the lack of direction and response from the 11
Department as the reason the provider was not further involved, but she admitted
it was the mother’s responsibility to follow the court’s orders and that the mother
had not done so.
The hearing recommenced in December 2014, and the mother testified.
The mother gave excuses for why she failed to continue the child in therapy,
despite the court’s direction that it was necessary. The mother blamed her prior
attorney, the Department, and the birth of her youngest child, and she never
accepted any responsibility for her involvement. However, she admitted she had
not thought the child previously needed therapy, questioning the use of the play
therapy technique, but she testified she now believed the child did need help
“because of what is happening now.” The mother testified she did not realize at
the time “how difficult [the child] was getting through with [the father]” or that it
was “going to be very complicated [to the child] to realize what really happened.”
She also claimed the first therapist told her the child would be brainwashed by
therapy and the child should not see anyone until after she turned eighteen.
When asked if she felt she had any role or any part in the breakdown of the
parent-child relationship, the mother simply testified she did “the best [she] could
to help [the child] forget what really happened to [the father], and maybe [she]
overdid it.”
The mother testified she believed the child had been brainwashed by the
Family, testifying the child was like their puppet. She believed the child only liked
living with the Family because there she was an only child and the Family had
more money than the mother. She justified sending nasty text messages to the
Family, stating that “if somebody did some bad stuff, of course it’s going to be 12
dirty.” She testified she believed “the people holding [her] daughter . . . are nuts.
They should not be stealing somebody’s child. It is a kidnapping. Sideways,
backways, it’s the wrong way. I swear to God they will be responsible for what
they have done.” She admitted she had gone to the police again in October
2014 and reported the Family had kidnapped the child, even though she was well
aware of the court’s prior removal order. She testified she wanted the child
placed in foster care, out of the Family’s care, because the Family had damaged
the child. The mother admitted the child had not wanted to talk to her and said
bad things to her during their most recent visits but testified if the child came
home with her,
[e]verything will be fixed. . . . [S]he is still my daughter, and we still have so much love for her and time will fix anything. It will be a little bit [of] struggling and it will be a little bit difficult because she got so much through from somebody, but it will fix anything. . . . [S]he probably needs more therapy and go see some different person to help her heal, but she will be okay.
The mother testified she wanted the child back home with her no matter what,
but if the Department did not think the time was right yet, she would work with the
Department.
Finally, the juvenile court met with the child on the record outside the
presence of the attorneys and the mother. The child was intelligent and stated
she understood what it meant to be truthful. The court explained its responsibility
in the case and the presumption that children’s best interests are served by
placement with their parents, and the child adamantly did not want anything to do
with the mother. The court also explained that though the child felt that way now,
her opinion might change over time such that visitation now was important. The 13
child disagreed and did not see herself changing her mind. The child told the
court the mother “hits [her] and stuff, like bad.” She stated that when she was
younger and went to her paternal grandmother’s house, her grandmother would
ask why she had bruises on her legs, and the bruises were from the mother. The
child explained she did not want contact with her mother or siblings because
“they hit people and don’t give anyone privacy and they don’t care about if you
get in a fight at school or get bad grades.” The child elucidated that “last year
[her older sibling] got suspended from school three times from hitting people.
And that was her first year in middle school and [the mother] didn’t care.” The
child also stated the child had “had one bad grade and [the mother] didn’t care.”
The child stated that while living with the Family she had had time to do her
homework and had made the honor roll. She said at her mother’s house, she
had no bedtime or privacy, but she did at the Family’s home. She told the court
she was going to family therapy with her mother, but they fought there. The child
described an instance at therapy when the mother had questioned the church the
child was attending with the Family because the mother “just wanted to be
sarcastic,” so the child walked out. The child stated she and the mother were
divided before the child started staying with Family, and she told the court when
the Family asked the mother if the child could stay with them, the mother “right
away” handed over to the Family the child’s “social security card and . . . glasses
prescription and stuff. And then at one point, . . . [the mother] said . . . she just
wants me to be happy. Then why would she let me go [out of state on vacation
with the Family], and then why would she let me go live [with the Family] for the 14
summer.” The child told the court the Family was the opposite of her mother and
that many things the mother had said were untrue, such as her mother saying
that [the child] told [the Family] that [the child] wanted to go back [to her mother’s house], and [the Family] didn’t speak to [the child] for the rest of the day. That never happened. .... But what really did happen, [the child] said to [the mother] that [the child] miss[ed] [the Family], and [the mother] didn’t speak to [the child] for the rest of the day.
The child told the court she believed her younger siblings were safe because
they spent most of their time with their father, but she did not know if her older
sibling was safe.
At the end of the hearing, the court advised the parties that its short term
plan would be for the child to remain with the Family, but the parties needed to
address the permanency goal and how to get to a family reunification plan. The
court told the child that although she could stay with the Family for now, the goal
was to continue to work on her relationship with her mother and biological family
through therapy. The court directed the mother to participate in individual
counseling and receive parenting instruction. The court asked the mother about
whether her oldest child had been suspended from school, and the mother
admitted the child had been suspended once “because of a big fight or some
kind of issue,” but she minimized the issue as being “[j]ust what all kids do when
they grow up and are going through older stuff.” The court noted the child was
also concerned with the child’s relationship with her older sibling, and the court
directed the mother to involve that child in family therapy.
The court subsequently entered its written order modifying the
dispositional order, officially removing the child from the mother’s care and 15
placing the child in the Department’s custody “for purposes of placement with
[the Family] as suitable adult caretakers.” The court’s order noted that although it
had “several concerns regarding the [Department’s] oversight of this family,” “the
[Department] made reasonable efforts to prevent through the recommendations
for counseling, online in home services through a [service] provider, and ongoing
efforts to engage the mother in the recommended services.” The court found the
“mother’s lack of follow through with recommended services and her decision to
defer care of the child to others is the root cause of the removal, not a lack of
offered services.”
The mother now appeals the modification order. Our review is de novo,
Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14, 14 (Iowa 2008), and, as
always, our primary concern in guiding our decisions is the best interests of the
child. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). Modification of a
dispositional order is provided for in Iowa Code section 232.103 (2015), and the
party seeking modification must show the circumstances have so materially and
substantially changed the best interests of the child require such a change. In re
D.G., 704 N.W.2d 454, 458 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008).
II. Discussion.
Iowa Code chapter 232 is to be “liberally construed to the end that each
child under the jurisdiction of the court shall receive, preferably in the child’s own
home, the care, guidance and control that will best serve the child’s welfare and
the best interest of the state.” Iowa Code § 232.1. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the child’s best interests are served by parental custody, In re
R.F., 471 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Iowa 1991), and whenever possible, “the court 16
should permit the child to remain at home with the child’s parent, guardian, or
custodian.” Iowa Code § 232.102(5)(a). Nevertheless, custody may be
transferred by the juvenile court if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that
“(1) The child cannot be protected from physical abuse without transfer of
custody; or (2) The child cannot be protected from some harm which would justify
the adjudication of the child as a [CINA] and an adequate placement is
available.” Id. Further, the court “must make a determination that continuation of
the child in the child’s home would be contrary to the welfare of the child, and
identify the reasonable efforts that have been made.” Id. § 232.102(5)(b).
The mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that
modification was in order. Rather, she takes issue with the court’s decision to
transfer custody to the Department for placement of the child in the care of the
Family, maintaining the Family interfered with her relationship with her child. She
requests the child be moved to a new foster family, against the child’s wishes.
She also asserts the court erred in finding the Department provided reasonable
services “to maintain [the child] in the mother’s care and custody.” The State
argues the placement determination is for the Department and therefore, the
mother lacks standing to challenge the placement. It also asserts that because
the mother does not dispute modification was necessary, her reasonable efforts
argument is not relevant, and in any event, not preserved for appellate review.
We address their claims in turn.
A. Reasonable Efforts.
We first address the mother’s argument that the Department failed to
provide reasonable services to avoid an out-ofhhome placement. The mother 17
states the “record is replete [with] evidence of the substandard services and
assistance provided to this family.” The mother does not point to any services
she requested that the court did not order provided to her or any other lack of
reasonable efforts, other than when the Department stopped visitation between
the mother and child for over a month, based upon the child’s request. However,
this was immediately remedied by the court when it learned visitation had been
stopped. As asserted by the State, it appears her lack-of-reasonable-efforts
argument was not preserved for our review. See In re S.R., 600 N.W.2d 63, 65
(Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (finding a parent’s failure to demand other or additional
services was insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review); In re M.B.,
595 N.W.2d 815, 818 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (noting a parent had the responsibility
to challenge or object to services).
Still, even if we assume without deciding the Department did not provide
adequate services to the mother, it is unclear how the relief the mother seeks
here—the removal of the child from the Family to placement with an unknown
foster family—is relevant to her lack-of-reasonable-efforts argument. In any
event, the subsequent proceedings in the juvenile court have rendered this
argument moot. See In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Iowa 1994) (“Any error
committed in granting the temporary ex parte order cannot now be remedied.
We cannot go back in time and restore custody based on alleged errors in the
initial removal order.”). Furthermore, the mother still has the opportunity to
address her own mental health needs and request of the court any services she
needs, as well as develop and demonstrate her ability and commitment to caring
for her child. We affirm on this issue. 18
B. Interference by the Family.
The mother asserts the Family interfered with her relationship with the
child and requests the child be placed with a new, unknown foster family. This
court has noted research has shown:
Multiple foster placements are detrimental to a child, may result in shallow indiscriminate emotional relationships in later years, and may become the source of antisocial, delinquent or criminal behavior. Children who have formed emotional ties to a foster family suffer the same emotional effect upon removal as do children being moved from the biological home. Each time a child is separated attachments may be broken generating insecurity and an inability to form future attachments. The inability to form attachments may permanently impair a child’s ability to form loving relationships.
In re C.S., 423 N.W.2d 567, 568-69 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (internal citations
omitted). Regardless, our de novo review of the record reveals that the Family is
not the issue.
Here, the involvement of the mother and child with the Department and
juvenile court did not arise out of nothing. Rather, the Department has had pretty
constant allegations of abuse concerning this child since 2007. More importantly,
the child herself told the court that the mother hit her in the past and she was
afraid. This appears to be a large part of the cause of the breakdown in the
relationship between the child and the mother. That the child did not speak up
before now is not unusual, given her age and her relationship with the mother.
Moreover, the mother has had directions from the court for this child to
receive therapy for almost as long as the Department has been involved with the
mother and child. Their relationship might have been able to be addressed in
therapy sooner had the mother followed the directions, but she did not. The 19
mother asserts this was not her fault, but in the mother’s mind, very little is her
fault. The mother’s actions and inability to take responsibility for the
consequences of her actions have clearly contributed to the breakdown of the
parent-child relationship.
Finally, the mother blames the Family for the child’s determination she no
longer wants to have a relationship with her mother. Yet, the Family did not even
know this child until 2011, and the mother and child’s relationship was clearly
rocky well before that time. Then, the mother made the choice to leave the child
with the Family more and more over time until the child felt abandoned by her
mother. The Family has gone above and beyond its call to duty to assure the
child’s safety and happiness, and the child’s desire to stay with them is not
material based—this eleven-year-old child is happy to have a bed time, to be
able to do her homework, to have people upon whom she can depend, and to be
safe. Neither of the Department’s case workers or the child’s GAL believed that
the Family had interfered with the mother’s relationship with the child, and clearly
the juvenile court found them to be credible.
There is no question some matters in this case have been neglected and
handled poorly, and the Department, the service provider, the GAL, and the
juvenile court all seem to recognize this. Nevertheless, we agree with the court
that it is the mother’s choices and lack of follow through that have resulted in the
deterioration of the parent-child relationship. What has happened has happened
and cannot be undone. Despite the mother’s wishes, our concern is the best
interests of the child, and the evidence plainly shows that placing the child now
with a foster family she does not know is not in the child’s best interests. With 20
the mother’s permission, and sometimes at her request, the child began
spending more and more time with the Family. This child has developed a close
bond with the Family. The bond should not now be broken simply because the
mother has had a change of heart. The child’s own statements evidence that
she is afraid to return to her mother’s care and that removing the child from the
Family’s care at the present time is not in the child’s best interests. We therefore
agree with the juvenile court’s placement of the child with the Department for
placement with the Family, with the continuation of services to the mother and
child for purposes of reunification. We encourage the mother to follow the
directions of the service providers, therapists, and court in working to repair her
relationship with her child, and we note that a “parent’s failure to address his or
her role in the abuse may hurt the parents’ chances of regaining custody and
care of their children.” In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 2002). The
mother must work now at putting the child’s interests before her own to assure
this child has the safety, stability, and security she needs to thrive.
IV. Conclusion.
For all of the above reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s modification of
the dispositional order.
AFFIRMED.