In the Interest of M.D., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0233
Filed May 22, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.,
Minor Child,

A.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,

Judge.

A mother challenges the removal of her son from her custody and his

adjudication as a child in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.

John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenize Moran, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Kimberly A. Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Inc., Cedar Rapids, attorney

and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
2

POTTERFIELD, Senior Judge.

Following the mother’s short-term mental-health committal for stimulant-

induced psychosis, the juvenile court ordered the removal of the mother’s child,

M.D.—then six years old—from her custody. A few months later, M.D. was

adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.96A(3)(a), (3)(b), and (14) (2023), and the juvenile court confirmed the

child’s ongoing removal from the mother’s custody. The mother appeals,

challenging M.D.‘s removal and whether the State proved the grounds for

adjudication.

“We review CINA proceedings de novo.” In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40

(Iowa 2014). “In reviewing the proceedings, we are not bound by the juvenile

court’s fact findings; however, we do give them weight.” Id.

First, the mother challenges the initial removal of M.D. from her custody,

arguing the State failed to prove the need for removal due to an “imminent risk to

the child’s life or health [that] is greater than the potential harm including but not

limited to any physical, emotional, social, or mental trauma the removal may cause

the child.” Iowa Code § 232.95(6)(a). But as we have held before, any deficiencies

in the removal proceedings were rendered moot by the entry of a subsequent

dispositional order. See, e.g., In re J.C., No. 11-0002, 2011 WL 648939, at *3 n.1

(Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2011) (“We hold the dispositional orders . . . rendered moot

any issue regarding the child’s removal.” (citing In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 871

(Iowa 1994))). As “we cannot go back in time and restore custody based on

alleged errors in the initial removal order,” In re E.M., No. 20-1722, 2021 WL

811135, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2021), we do not consider this issue further.
3

Second, the mother challenges the adjudication of M.D. as a CINA. The

juvenile court “may enter an order adjudicating the child to be a” CINA “[i]f the court

concludes that facts sufficient to sustain the petition have been established by

clear and convincing evidence.” Iowa Code § 232.96(9). “Clear and convincing

evidence . . . means that there must be no serious or substantial doubt about the

correctness of a particular conclusion drawn from the evidence.” In re L.G., 532

N.W.2d 478, 481 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Because “[t]he grounds for a CINA

adjudication do matter” and may affect what grounds for termination the State may

later rely upon, J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 40, we consider each of the three grounds

relied on by the juvenile court.1

But first, we review some of the relevant facts and history for this family.

The mother was previously involved with the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services and the juvenile court in 2018, after she deliberately drove

herself, M.D., and her older child (who is not at issue here) into the river during a

methamphetamine-induced psychosis. The mother reported she had been using

methamphetamine daily. Both children were adjudicated CINA, and the case

remained open until late 2020, with the mother participating in mental-health and

substance-use services. The department again became involved in late 2021,

after the mother relapsed on methamphetamine, lost her job, and was being

evicted. M.D. was again adjudicated CINA, and the case remained open until

October 2022. The current case began in October 2023, after the mother’s

1 The juvenile court did not specify under which grounds it was adjudicating M.D.

Like the mother did in her petition and the State did in its response, we assume
the juvenile court granted the CINA petition on each ground alleged.
4

neighbors called the police to report the mother was acting bizarrely, including

attempting to get in a swimming pool while fully clothed and while the air

temperature was below fifty degrees. When police arrived, the mother was

delusional, asking to speak to Elon Musk and the president on the phone. The

mother was transported to a local hospital by ambulance, where she was

diagnosed with amphetamine-induced psychosis and placed on a mental-health

hold. The older son later reported to department workers that when he went to the

home—after the mother was taken by ambulance—he found his, the mother’s, and

M.D.’s stuff in the bathtub covered with water. To the juvenile court, the mother

denied using illegal substances and minimized the incident, describing it as having

a panic attack and suggesting the reports of her mental state were overblown. In

its adjudication/disposition ruling, the juvenile court found the mother’s explanation

lacked credibility, ruling:

[T]o believe [the mother’s] explanation of the situation as a harmless,
blown-out-of-proportion event, one would need to disregard pages of
hospital documentation, the opinion of [the older son] who reported
concerns to [a department social worker], with whom he has a long
standing relationship, the concerns voiced by her sister . . . who has
served as placement and support throughout the previous CINA
cases, and her demeanor at the hearings held so far in this
matter. . . . [The mother] is well-known to the Court, due to her
participation in Family Treatment Court and a second CINA case
presided over by the Court. Her behavior and demeanor currently is
markedly different than in previous encounters with the Court during
a time that [the mother’s] mental health was stable.

With these facts in mind, we review the three grounds relied upon for adjudication

of M.D.

Under section 232.96A(3)(a), a CINA adjudication requires a determination

that “[t]he child has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a
5

result of . . . [m]ental injury caused by the acts of the child’s parent, guardian, or

custodian.” “‘Mental injury’ means a nonorganic injury to a child’s intellectual or

psychological capacity as evidenced by an observable and substantial impairment

in the child’s ability to function within the child’s normal range of performance and

behavior, considering the child’s cultural origin.” Iowa Code § 232.2(39). Based

on our case law, we conclude the mother’s use of unprescribed amphetamines

and her ongoing mental-health needs make it imminently likely M.D. will suffer

mental injury. Cf. J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 42 (“[A] juvenile court could reasonably

determine that a parent’s active addiction to methamphetamine is ‘imminently

likely’ to result in harmful effects to the physical, mental, or social wellbeing of the

children in the parent’s care.”). The mother’s 2018 incident of methamphetamine-

induced psychosis put M.D. (and his brother) in grave physical danger when the

mother intentionally drove into the river. And experiencing intentional danger at

the hands of the mother put M.D. at risk of suffering mental injury. See id. at 43

(“Case law supports a liberal interpretation of the phrase ‘imminently likely’ in the

CINA context.”). The mother’s recent drug-induced psychosis shared similar traits

of the 2018 incident, with the mother attempting to submerge herself in cold water

and otherwise placing M.D.’s and her older child’s stuff under water in the bathtub.

Adjudication under section 232.96A(3)(b) is appropriate when “[t]he child

has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of . . . [t]he

failure of the child’s parent . . . to exercise a reasonable degree of care in

supervising the child.” “Typically, an adjudication as a [CINA] pursuant to [now-

section 232.96A(3)(b)] involves a parent who inadequately or insufficiently

supervises a child due to inability or lack of concern, placing the child at risk of
6

harm.” In re E.R., No. 14-0850, 2014 WL 4937999, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 1,

2014). And here, the mother is unable to safely parent when experiencing

psychosis. Without any credible explanation as to why she took amphetamines or

more insight into her current mental-health needs, we cannot say the issues the

mother experienced are in the past. We agree with the juvenile court that

adjudication of M.D. is appropriate under section 232.96A(3)(b).

Finally, under section 232.96A(14), a CINA adjudication requires a

determination that “[t]he child’s parent . . . suffers from a mental incapacity, a

mental condition, imprisonment, or drug or alcohol abuse that results in the child

not receiving adequate care or being imminently likely not to receive adequate

care.” “‘[A]dequate care’ for a child means meeting the child’s essential needs.

One of those essential needs is a safe home.” In re H.W., 961 N.W.2d 138, 144

(Iowa Ct. App. 2021). Based on the facts we have already outlined, we conclude

adjudication was also appropriate under this ground.

We affirm the adjudication of M.D. as a CINA pursuant to Iowa Code

section 232.96A(3)(a), (3)(b), and (14).

AFFIRMED.