IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1700 Filed January 23, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M. and M.M., Minor Children,
K.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s entry of a bridge modification order
and its order finding reasonable efforts for reunification were made. AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Grishma Arumugam of GPA Legal LLC, Davenport, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Judge.
This is an appeal in child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings
involving two children—born in 2009 and 2017. The children’s parents divorced in
2021. Their divorce decree gave them joint legal custody and joint physical care
of the children.
In 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as CINA, removed them
from the mother’s custody, and placed them in the father’s custody and care after
the mother possessed methamphetamine and refused to voluntarily participate in
services offered by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. After
more than a year of services without any notable progress by the mother, the
juvenile court ended the CINA proceedings by entering a bridge modification order
in district court granting the father legal custody and physical care of the children
subject to the mother’s visitation, which would be at the father’s discretion. See
Iowa Code § 232.103B(1) (2024) (permitting the juvenile court to close a CINA
case by returning jurisdiction to the district court via an order “modifying issues of
legal custody, physical care, and parenting time” when specified conditions are
met). The juvenile court also denied the mother’s motion for reasonable efforts,
which asked for additional visitation and family counseling. The mother appeals
both the terms of the bridge modification order and the order denying her request
for reasonable efforts.
I. Standard of Review
We review CINA proceedings de novo and, in doing so, give weight to the
juvenile court’s fact findings even though we are not bound by them. In re D.D., 3
955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). Our primary concern is the children’s best
interests. Id.
II. Reasonable Efforts
We start our review by addressing the mother’s challenge to the court’s
reasonable-efforts ruling. In this case’s context, reasonable efforts are “the efforts
made to . . . eliminate the need for removal of the child[ren] or make it possible for
the child[ren] to safely return to the [mother]’s home.” Iowa Code
§ 232.102A(1)(a). The reasonable-efforts mandate requires the department to
make every reasonable effort to return children to their home as soon as possible
consistent with the children’s best interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa
2000). This mandate focuses on services to improve parenting, which includes
visitation. Id. But, in assessing compliance with this mandate, we look to the
services provided and the parent’s response, not necessarily to the services a
parent claims the department failed to provide. Id. at 494.
Here, the mother’s primary complaint is that the older child refused to attend
any visits, and her visits with the younger child were reduced from four hours per
week to two hours per week of supervised time. At first blush, this limited amount
of visitation gives us some pause. But, as in all cases involving a reasonable-
efforts challenge, we assess the department’s actions based on the particular
circumstances of the case. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 2000).
Those circumstances include the fact that the mother has mental-health and
substance-use issues, which she has refused to meaningfully address. When she
exercised her limited visits, she had to be reminded repeatedly to interact with the
child rather than sitting idly by while the child watched videos. She also refused to 4
submit to even one of the numerous drug tests demanded by the department.
Also, despite the services offered to her, the mother steadfastly denied the
detrimental effects her drug use had on the children and her ability to parent them.
And, importantly, the children’s counselor did not recommend forcing the older
child to attend visits or changing the visitation schedule with the younger child.
Upon consideration of all these circumstances, we agree with the juvenile court’s
determination that the department made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
III. Bridge Modification Order
We turn next to the mother’s challenge to the terms of the bridge
modification order. We start by noting that the juvenile court’s authority to modify
an existing district court custody order as a means of closing a CINA case—as
opposed to issuing an initial order addressing custody-related issues—was
granted by our legislature in 2023. See 2023 Iowa Acts ch. 132, § 1 (codified at
Iowa Code § 232.103B). Iowa Code section 232.103B permits the juvenile court
to close a CINA case by modifying an existing district court order on the issues of
custody, physical care, and visitation by entry of a bridge modification order.
Before the juvenile court is permitted to enter such an order, five statutory
conditions must be met. See Iowa Code § 232.103B(1)(a)–(f). The mother does
not contend that any of the statutory conditions were not met. Instead, she argues
only that the terms of the order were erroneous. So, we limit our review
accordingly.1 See In re B.C., No. 24-1069, 2024 WL 4620164, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
1 As the mother does not challenge the visitation provisions of the bridge modification order, we confine our discussion to the legal-custody and physical- care provisions. 5
Oct. 30, 2024) (declining to address the statutory conditions for entry of a bridge
order when no challenge is made to those conditions).2
The mother contends the terms of the bridge modification order that
changed the parents’ legal relationships with the children from joint legal custody
and joint physical care to the father having legal custody and physical care are not
in the children’s best interests. The factors to consider in determining custody and
physical care are well-known and spelled out in In re Marriage of Winter. 223
N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974); see also In re Marriage of Fennelly,
737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007) (noting that the factors for determining custody
set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and In re Marriage of Winter also apply to
physical-care determinations). The children’s best interests are the overriding
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1700 Filed January 23, 2025
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M. and M.M., Minor Children,
K.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,
Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s entry of a bridge modification order
and its order finding reasonable efforts for reunification were made. AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Kramer of Kramer Law Office, PLLC, Dubuque, for appellant
mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Dion D. Trowers, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Grishma Arumugam of GPA Legal LLC, Davenport, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ. 2
AHLERS, Judge.
This is an appeal in child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings
involving two children—born in 2009 and 2017. The children’s parents divorced in
2021. Their divorce decree gave them joint legal custody and joint physical care
of the children.
In 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as CINA, removed them
from the mother’s custody, and placed them in the father’s custody and care after
the mother possessed methamphetamine and refused to voluntarily participate in
services offered by the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. After
more than a year of services without any notable progress by the mother, the
juvenile court ended the CINA proceedings by entering a bridge modification order
in district court granting the father legal custody and physical care of the children
subject to the mother’s visitation, which would be at the father’s discretion. See
Iowa Code § 232.103B(1) (2024) (permitting the juvenile court to close a CINA
case by returning jurisdiction to the district court via an order “modifying issues of
legal custody, physical care, and parenting time” when specified conditions are
met). The juvenile court also denied the mother’s motion for reasonable efforts,
which asked for additional visitation and family counseling. The mother appeals
both the terms of the bridge modification order and the order denying her request
for reasonable efforts.
I. Standard of Review
We review CINA proceedings de novo and, in doing so, give weight to the
juvenile court’s fact findings even though we are not bound by them. In re D.D., 3
955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 2021). Our primary concern is the children’s best
interests. Id.
II. Reasonable Efforts
We start our review by addressing the mother’s challenge to the court’s
reasonable-efforts ruling. In this case’s context, reasonable efforts are “the efforts
made to . . . eliminate the need for removal of the child[ren] or make it possible for
the child[ren] to safely return to the [mother]’s home.” Iowa Code
§ 232.102A(1)(a). The reasonable-efforts mandate requires the department to
make every reasonable effort to return children to their home as soon as possible
consistent with the children’s best interests. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa
2000). This mandate focuses on services to improve parenting, which includes
visitation. Id. But, in assessing compliance with this mandate, we look to the
services provided and the parent’s response, not necessarily to the services a
parent claims the department failed to provide. Id. at 494.
Here, the mother’s primary complaint is that the older child refused to attend
any visits, and her visits with the younger child were reduced from four hours per
week to two hours per week of supervised time. At first blush, this limited amount
of visitation gives us some pause. But, as in all cases involving a reasonable-
efforts challenge, we assess the department’s actions based on the particular
circumstances of the case. See In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 2000).
Those circumstances include the fact that the mother has mental-health and
substance-use issues, which she has refused to meaningfully address. When she
exercised her limited visits, she had to be reminded repeatedly to interact with the
child rather than sitting idly by while the child watched videos. She also refused to 4
submit to even one of the numerous drug tests demanded by the department.
Also, despite the services offered to her, the mother steadfastly denied the
detrimental effects her drug use had on the children and her ability to parent them.
And, importantly, the children’s counselor did not recommend forcing the older
child to attend visits or changing the visitation schedule with the younger child.
Upon consideration of all these circumstances, we agree with the juvenile court’s
determination that the department made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
III. Bridge Modification Order
We turn next to the mother’s challenge to the terms of the bridge
modification order. We start by noting that the juvenile court’s authority to modify
an existing district court custody order as a means of closing a CINA case—as
opposed to issuing an initial order addressing custody-related issues—was
granted by our legislature in 2023. See 2023 Iowa Acts ch. 132, § 1 (codified at
Iowa Code § 232.103B). Iowa Code section 232.103B permits the juvenile court
to close a CINA case by modifying an existing district court order on the issues of
custody, physical care, and visitation by entry of a bridge modification order.
Before the juvenile court is permitted to enter such an order, five statutory
conditions must be met. See Iowa Code § 232.103B(1)(a)–(f). The mother does
not contend that any of the statutory conditions were not met. Instead, she argues
only that the terms of the order were erroneous. So, we limit our review
accordingly.1 See In re B.C., No. 24-1069, 2024 WL 4620164, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
1 As the mother does not challenge the visitation provisions of the bridge modification order, we confine our discussion to the legal-custody and physical- care provisions. 5
Oct. 30, 2024) (declining to address the statutory conditions for entry of a bridge
order when no challenge is made to those conditions).2
The mother contends the terms of the bridge modification order that
changed the parents’ legal relationships with the children from joint legal custody
and joint physical care to the father having legal custody and physical care are not
in the children’s best interests. The factors to consider in determining custody and
physical care are well-known and spelled out in In re Marriage of Winter. 223
N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974); see also In re Marriage of Fennelly,
737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007) (noting that the factors for determining custody
set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and In re Marriage of Winter also apply to
physical-care determinations). The children’s best interests are the overriding
consideration when assessing the factors. Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 101.
Following our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court’s decision to
grant the father legal custody and physical care of the children. The mother failed
to appear at the hearing on the father’s motion asking for entry of the bridge
modification order, and she presented scant evidence in opposition to the motion.
So, the evidence in support of the father’s request was largely unrebutted. That
evidence included the details outlined above regarding the mother’s issues,
including her failure to adequately address her substance-use and mental-health
issues and her inability to recognize the detrimental effects her methamphetamine
2 Section 232.103B is a relatively new statute, and we have found no cases addressing it. Because section 232.103B is structured like and patterned after section 232.103A—which gives the juvenile court authority to close a CINA case by entering a bridge order that sets custody, physical care, and visitation in the absence of an existing district court order doing so—we consider cases interpreting section 232.103A instructive. 6
use has on the children and her ability to parent them. See Iowa Code
§ 598.41(3)(a) (listing as a factor in a custody determination “[w]hether each parent
would be a suitable custodian for the child”), (i) (listing as a factor “[w]hether the
safety of the child[ren] . . . will be jeopardized by the awarding of joint custody or
by unsupervised or unrestricted visitation”).
The evidence also establishes that changing the custodial arrangement that
was in place during the CINA proceedings—under which the father had custody
and physical care—would be psychologically and emotionally harmful to the
children. See id. § 598.41(3)(b) (listing as a factor in custody determinations
“[w]hether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the
child[ren] will suffer due to lack of active contact with and attention from both
parents”). In contrast to the instability demonstrated by the mother, the evidence
establishes that the father has provided a stable and safe home for the children
where they are doing well in school, in extracurricular activities, and in general.
See id. § 598.41(3)(a). And finally, the older child—who was on the verge of
turning fifteen at the time of the hearing—expressed a preference for being in her
father’s custody and care and strong opposition to being placed back in her
mother’s custody and care. See id. § 598.41(3)(f) (listing as a factor “[w]hether the
custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has
strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity”).
After taking into consideration all relevant circumstances on our de novo
review, we agree with the juvenile court that the CINA proceedings could safely
close by entry of a bridge modification order. The only impediment to closure of
the CINA proceedings is the mother’s instability. The negative impact of that 7
instability was curbed by the terms of the bridge modification order giving the father
legal custody and physical care of the children. As a result, we also agree that it
is in the children’s best interests to give the father legal custody and physical care
IV. Conclusion
Having rejected the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge and her
challenge to the legal-custody and physical-care terms of the bridge modification
order, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.