IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1839 Filed February 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. and C.S., Minor Children,
A.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof,
District Associate Judge.
A mother challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional finding that the State
has made reasonable efforts to return her children to her custody. AFFIRMED.
Grishma Arumugam, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie L. Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Jennifer Olsen of Olsen Law Firm, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A mother contends that the Iowa Department of Health and Human Serivces
has not made reasonable efforts to return her children, L.S. born in 2020 and C.S.
born in 2021, to her custody. Her contention focuses on the slow progression of
her visits with the children. She also argues the juvenile court used an incorrect
standard in deciding her reasonable-efforts claim.
Like the mother, we find the department should have acted with more
urgency in scheduling visitation with her children early in the case. But we also
agree with the juvenile court that circumstances required “taking a careful
approach . . . for the safety of these children.” At this time, we reject the mother’s
reasonable-efforts challenge.1
This case opened in April 2022 when the mother had a physical fight with
the children’s paternal grandmother and drove away, while intoxicated, with six-
month-old C.S. in the car. Child protective services returned a founded
assessment of improper supervision by the mother. The parents agreed to a safety
plan with the department.2 But one month later, the mother fought with the father
and attempted suicide. After being released from the hospital, she admitted to
stopping her mental-health medication and drinking alcohol. The parents signed
a new safety plan in June, agreeing that the mother would not watch the children
without supervision and would be a sober caretaker. In violation of that plan, the
1 The mother appeals from a dispositional order. In child-welfare cases, we review the evidence de novo. In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311, 317 (Iowa 1984). 2 This safety plan provided that both parents would maintain sobriety while
parenting the children; there would be no physical altercations around the children; and the mother would obtain a substance-abuse evaluation and follow through with its recommendations. 3
mother took the children to an out-of-town wedding and cared for them at the
motel—by herself, while intoxicated. Child protective services again returned a
founded assessment of improper supervision by the mother.
In July, the juvenile court adjudicated C.S. and L.S. as children in need of
assistance (CINA) and placed them in their father’s custody. By the time of the
adjudication hearing, the mother had entered treatment.
At the CINA disposition hearing in October, the mother’s counsel argued
that the department was not making reasonable efforts to reunite her with the
children. For starters, after the CINA adjudication, the department did not set up
visitation for three or four weeks despite the mother’s requests. According to
counsel, “[t]hey wouldn’t cooperate with her, get her the schedule. They would ask
her for her employment, she provided the past supervisor a number of timesheets
and still they wouldn’t really get her visits set up. So she was pretty frustrated.”
The mother also asserted the case worker did not contact her from July to
September. The department did not counter that assertion. In fact, case work
manager Christopher Moeller testified at the disposition hearing that he
remembered the mother telling him that she “did not have a lot of communication”
with the first worker assigned to the case. He also testified that he believed that
the department had at first allowed the father to supervise the mother’s interactions
with the children.
That supervision by the father was a point of contention. In her petition on
appeal, the mother claims that two providers knew that the father was supervising
her daily interactions with the children, and she “continued having daily and
overnight visits for two months without any concerns.” But a new caseworker 4
stopped that arrangement and reduced her visits to just two-hour sessions twice
weekly supervised by the service provider.
Moeller confirmed that the department now believed that the father “should
not be approved to supervise the visits.” The court agreed, telling the mother that
the court wanted the service provider “to be the eyes for the visits so we can quickly
move to unsupervised or semi-supervised” visits. The court explained its
preference for professional supervision: “Because she’s somebody that’s going to
be neutral, understands parenting and any kind of risk to safety that we have to
worry about.”
As its bottom line, the court found that the department had provided
reasonable efforts to facilitate the goal of reunification. It acknowledged: “While
the schedule may not be to the mother’s liking, the court finds that taking a careful
approach is necessary for the safety of these children due to their age and inability
to self-protect or care for themselves if their mother is again ill.” The mother
contests that finding.
In her petition on appeal, the mother asks us to reverse the dispositional
order. She argues the juvenile court applied an “incorrect standard” in rejecting
her reasonable-efforts challenge. In her words, “[T]he court made clear its belief
the mother had no basis to claim [the department] failed to make reasonable efforts
because she should not be complaining about what the social workers aren’t doing
that she is manipulating.”
In assessing the mother’s claim, we start by defining “reasonable efforts.”
That term forms the foundation of the State’s duty to protect the integrity of the
family whenever possible. It means “the efforts made to preserve and unify a 5
family prior to the out-of-home placement of a child in foster care or to eliminate
the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the child to safely return to
the family’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(1)(a) (2022). “A child’s health and
safety shall be the paramount concern in making reasonable efforts.” Id. The
department must make reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child before
moving forward with the termination of parental rights. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343,
345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Key to this appeal, reasonable efforts include “visitation designed to
facilitate reunification while providing adequate protection for the child.” In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). Indeed, “[v]isitation between a parent and child
is an important ingredient to the goal of reunification.” M.B., 533 N.W.2d at 345.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1839 Filed February 8, 2023
IN THE INTEREST OF L.S. and C.S., Minor Children,
A.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof,
District Associate Judge.
A mother challenges the juvenile court’s dispositional finding that the State
has made reasonable efforts to return her children to her custody. AFFIRMED.
Grishma Arumugam, Davenport, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie L. Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Jennifer Olsen of Olsen Law Firm, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
A mother contends that the Iowa Department of Health and Human Serivces
has not made reasonable efforts to return her children, L.S. born in 2020 and C.S.
born in 2021, to her custody. Her contention focuses on the slow progression of
her visits with the children. She also argues the juvenile court used an incorrect
standard in deciding her reasonable-efforts claim.
Like the mother, we find the department should have acted with more
urgency in scheduling visitation with her children early in the case. But we also
agree with the juvenile court that circumstances required “taking a careful
approach . . . for the safety of these children.” At this time, we reject the mother’s
reasonable-efforts challenge.1
This case opened in April 2022 when the mother had a physical fight with
the children’s paternal grandmother and drove away, while intoxicated, with six-
month-old C.S. in the car. Child protective services returned a founded
assessment of improper supervision by the mother. The parents agreed to a safety
plan with the department.2 But one month later, the mother fought with the father
and attempted suicide. After being released from the hospital, she admitted to
stopping her mental-health medication and drinking alcohol. The parents signed
a new safety plan in June, agreeing that the mother would not watch the children
without supervision and would be a sober caretaker. In violation of that plan, the
1 The mother appeals from a dispositional order. In child-welfare cases, we review the evidence de novo. In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311, 317 (Iowa 1984). 2 This safety plan provided that both parents would maintain sobriety while
parenting the children; there would be no physical altercations around the children; and the mother would obtain a substance-abuse evaluation and follow through with its recommendations. 3
mother took the children to an out-of-town wedding and cared for them at the
motel—by herself, while intoxicated. Child protective services again returned a
founded assessment of improper supervision by the mother.
In July, the juvenile court adjudicated C.S. and L.S. as children in need of
assistance (CINA) and placed them in their father’s custody. By the time of the
adjudication hearing, the mother had entered treatment.
At the CINA disposition hearing in October, the mother’s counsel argued
that the department was not making reasonable efforts to reunite her with the
children. For starters, after the CINA adjudication, the department did not set up
visitation for three or four weeks despite the mother’s requests. According to
counsel, “[t]hey wouldn’t cooperate with her, get her the schedule. They would ask
her for her employment, she provided the past supervisor a number of timesheets
and still they wouldn’t really get her visits set up. So she was pretty frustrated.”
The mother also asserted the case worker did not contact her from July to
September. The department did not counter that assertion. In fact, case work
manager Christopher Moeller testified at the disposition hearing that he
remembered the mother telling him that she “did not have a lot of communication”
with the first worker assigned to the case. He also testified that he believed that
the department had at first allowed the father to supervise the mother’s interactions
with the children.
That supervision by the father was a point of contention. In her petition on
appeal, the mother claims that two providers knew that the father was supervising
her daily interactions with the children, and she “continued having daily and
overnight visits for two months without any concerns.” But a new caseworker 4
stopped that arrangement and reduced her visits to just two-hour sessions twice
weekly supervised by the service provider.
Moeller confirmed that the department now believed that the father “should
not be approved to supervise the visits.” The court agreed, telling the mother that
the court wanted the service provider “to be the eyes for the visits so we can quickly
move to unsupervised or semi-supervised” visits. The court explained its
preference for professional supervision: “Because she’s somebody that’s going to
be neutral, understands parenting and any kind of risk to safety that we have to
worry about.”
As its bottom line, the court found that the department had provided
reasonable efforts to facilitate the goal of reunification. It acknowledged: “While
the schedule may not be to the mother’s liking, the court finds that taking a careful
approach is necessary for the safety of these children due to their age and inability
to self-protect or care for themselves if their mother is again ill.” The mother
contests that finding.
In her petition on appeal, the mother asks us to reverse the dispositional
order. She argues the juvenile court applied an “incorrect standard” in rejecting
her reasonable-efforts challenge. In her words, “[T]he court made clear its belief
the mother had no basis to claim [the department] failed to make reasonable efforts
because she should not be complaining about what the social workers aren’t doing
that she is manipulating.”
In assessing the mother’s claim, we start by defining “reasonable efforts.”
That term forms the foundation of the State’s duty to protect the integrity of the
family whenever possible. It means “the efforts made to preserve and unify a 5
family prior to the out-of-home placement of a child in foster care or to eliminate
the need for removal of the child or make it possible for the child to safely return to
the family’s home.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(1)(a) (2022). “A child’s health and
safety shall be the paramount concern in making reasonable efforts.” Id. The
department must make reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child before
moving forward with the termination of parental rights. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343,
345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Key to this appeal, reasonable efforts include “visitation designed to
facilitate reunification while providing adequate protection for the child.” In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). Indeed, “[v]isitation between a parent and child
is an important ingredient to the goal of reunification.” M.B., 533 N.W.2d at 345.
Experts maintain that the frequency of family time is a “strong predictor of children
being united with their parents.” See Leonard Edwards, Reasonable Efforts: A
Judicial Perspective (2d ed. 2021) at 49. Still, “the nature and extent of visitation
is always controlled by the best interests of the child.” M.B., 533 N.W.2d at 345.
The mother made an appropriate demand for reasonable efforts after the
CINA adjudication. And the record supports her assertion that the department was
slow in scheduling supervised visits. We often lecture parents that “the crucial
days of childhood” cannot be suspended while they work to correct their problems.
See generally In re A.C., 415 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Iowa 1987). That same urgency
must apply to the department’s efforts. The workers should have been able to set
up visitation between the mother and children within a month of adjudication.
That said, the evidence at the disposition hearing shows that the
department was making a more concerted effort to ensure that the mother was 6
having more frequent and safe interactions with her children. To that end,
manager Moeller testified that, on top of the professionally supervised visits, the
department had approved the maternal grandmother to oversee additional
interactions between the mother and children.
And contrary to the mother’s arguments, we do not find the juvenile court
applied a faulty standard in assessing reasonable efforts. The court’s reference to
the mother’s “manipulation” referred to her interactions with the father, not with the
department. The court evaluated the totality of the department’s reunification
efforts to date and judged them reasonable. Like the juvenile court, we find that
the department met the reasonable-efforts standard at the time of the hearing.
AFFIRMED.