In the Interest of R.S., Minor Child, J.G. and B.J., Intervenors
This text of In the Interest of R.S., Minor Child, J.G. and B.J., Intervenors (In the Interest of R.S., Minor Child, J.G. and B.J., Intervenors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1244 Filed September 23, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF R.S., Minor Child,
J.G. and B.J., Intervenors, Appellants. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
District Associate Judge.
Two foster parents appeal a district court decision removing a child from
their care, and denying their motion to remove the Department of Human
Services as the child’s guardian. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Olsen, Davenport, for appellant-intervenors.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristi A. Traynor, Assistant Attorney
General, Mike Wolf, County Attorney, and Cheryl J. Newport, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Patricia A. Rolfstad, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ. 2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
The Department of Human Services served as guardian of a seven-year-
old child whose parents’ rights to the child were terminated. The department
placed the child in a pre-adoptive foster home1 but, in less than three months,
removed her based on concerns of harsh discipline. The foster parents
intervened and challenged the removal. They (1) argued the department had an
obligation to make reasonable efforts to preserve the placement with them and
(2) requested removal of the department as guardian.
The district court found no statutory authority requiring the department to
make reasonable efforts to preserve the placement. The court also concluded
the department’s decision to remove the child was not unreasonable and was in
the best interests of the child. Accordingly, the court declined to remove the
department as guardian. The foster parents appealed.
(1) Reasonable Efforts
The foster parents argue the department “had a duty to provide
reasonable efforts to preserve [the child] in the placement.” They cite Iowa Code
sections 232.102(7) and 232.117(6) (2015) in support of their argument. Neither
provision imposes this requirement.
Section 232.102(7) states the department “shall make every reasonable
effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with
the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) The balance of the
provision—addressing transfers of the child to persons or entities other than the
1 The foster parents did not sign an adoption agreement but expressed a desire to adopt the child. The department initially considered them an appropriate adoptive placement. 3
parents—makes no mention of a reasonable efforts obligation directed to those
persons or entities. Iowa Code § 232.102(7).
Section 232.117(6) simply requires the department to “make every effort
to establish a stable placement for the child by adoption or other permanent
placement.” It says nothing about reasonable efforts to preserve a pre-adoptive
foster care placement following removal of the child from the placement. See In
re E.G., 745 N.W.2d 741, 744 (Iowa 2007) (“The foster care system is designed
to provide temporary, not permanent, homes for children. This is to facilitate the
goals of reunification with the parents or placement in a relative’s home. . . . [I]f
every foster parent who formed a bond with a child were given enforceable rights
to the children, it would upset the goals of the system.”).
At a hearing on the motions, counsel conceded as much. She stated she
did “not have statutory authority . . . in regards to reasonable efforts findings or
the requirement for the department to provide [reasonable efforts] to pre-adoptive
or foster parents as it relates to a foster child.”
We conclude the district court did not err in refusing to require the
department to make reasonable efforts to preserve the foster care placement.
(2) Removal of Guardian
The foster parents argue the department acted unreasonably or
irresponsibly in discharging its duties and the district court should have removed
the agency as guardian.
Iowa Code section 232.118(1) affords the district court removal authority.
The provision states: 4
Upon application of an interested party or upon the court’s own motion, the court having jurisdiction of the child may, after notice to the parties and the hearing, remove the court-appointed guardian and appoint a guardian in accordance with the provisions of section 232.117, subsection 3.
Iowa Code § 232.118(1). Our court has applied various standards to decide
whether a guardian should be removed. See In re D.H., No. 10-1313, 2010 WL
4484849, *6-7 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010). For example, in In re E.G., 745
N.W.2d 741, 744 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007), we noted there was no proof of
“unreasonable actions on the part of the Department” or evidence the department
failed to look out for the child’s best interests. (Emphasis added.) In an earlier
opinion, we stated the department “was responsibly discharging its duties as
guardian.” In re E.G., 738 N.W.2d 653, 657 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis
added). On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that the foster
parents failed to satisfy these standards.2
Less than a month after placing the child in the pre-adoptive foster home,
the department learned that this child and others were sent to the basement and
were forced to use a treadmill or stand with their knees bent and arms
outstretched until their legs hurt, both as forms of discipline. It was also reported
the foster children had to sleep in the basement without blankets.
After the treadmill incident was reported, department staff met with the
foster parents and brought the allegation to their attention. The foster parents
2 The district court made de novo review much easier by numerically identifying the exhibits offered by the parties and by declining to admit those exhibits that were already in the record. The court’s numerical identifications corresponded with the numerical identifications contained in the EDMS trial binder, significantly expediting our search of the record. 5
agreed to stop this method of discipline. When additional complaints came to
light, the child was removed from the foster home.
Later, a corrective action plan was presented to the foster parents. In
addition to the forms of discipline cited above, the plan stated the foster father
spanked the child with a belt for failing to complete her homework correctly. The
foster parents were admonished to avoid the use of corporal discipline, which
was prohibited by department regulations.
The parents declined to sign the corrective action plan. Their foster care
license was revoked.
There is no question the removal initially traumatized the child, who was
beginning to develop a bond with the foster family, notwithstanding her
complaints of harsh discipline. But, even with the trauma, the child’s therapist
opined removal was in the child’s best interests. Significantly, the district court
found the therapist’s testimony credible. We give weight to this credibility finding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of R.S., Minor Child, J.G. and B.J., Intervenors, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rs-minor-child-jg-and-bj-intervenors-iowactapp-2015.