In the Interest of A.G., E.G., T.G., C.O., C.P., I.P., I.P., S.P., and T.P., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1507
Filed December 4, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., E.G., T.G., C.O., C.P., I.P., I.P., S.P., and T.P.,
Minor Children,

B.E., Mother,
Appellant,

D.P., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle

Mahaffey, Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the adjudicatory and disposition

orders in a children-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED ON BOTH

APPEALS.

Debra George of Griffing & George Law Firm PLC, Centerville, for appellant

mother.

Jonathan Willier, Centerville, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Julie De Vries of De Vries Law Office, PLC, Centerville, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.*

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

(2024).
2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

A mother and father separately appeal the adjudicatory and disposition

orders in a children-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding. Each parent

challenges the grounds for the CINA adjudication. The mother also challenges the

determination that the State made reasonable efforts to prevent the children’s

removal. Because substantial evidence supports the grounds for the CINA

adjudication and removal, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The CINA proceedings involve nine children ranging from one to sixteen

years old. B.E. is the mother of all nine children. D.P. is the father of the five

youngest children.1

In February 2024, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) received reports about domestic violence in the home and the mother’s

misuse of prescription medication. There were allegations that the mother

assaulted the father in front of the children and threw a full can of pop at her three-

year-old child’s head. There were also concerns about the mother’s mental health

with reports that she exhibited paranoid and erratic behavior. A child abuse

assessment was founded against the mother for denial of critical care for failing to

provide proper supervision.

The HHS has been involved with the family since at least 2015 based on

concerns about domestic violence, mental health, and substance use. At the

adjudicatory hearing, a case manager who has been involved with the family on

1 The fathers of the other four children are not involved in this appeal.
3

and off since that time testified that the mother and father have a history of violating

no-contact orders. She described the cyclical pattern of behavior she witnessed

in their relationship:

They’ll do fine for a while, and then there will be small things that
cause stress in their relationship.
. . . They don’t come running to us when there’s smaller
problems and then those problems get bigger, and then we have an
explosion, which is usually domestic violence or positive drug test or
behaviors that make it look like there’s current drug use that we have
to follow up on.
Then there’s people feeling guilty about what happened, and
things cycle again. Then they’re doing well for a while, and their
relationship starts to have problems again. All of that impacts both
of their mental health, and it could be that, at times, their mental
health impacts their relationship.

In May, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as CINA. It did not

remove them from either the parents’ custody or care. But things took a turn for

the worse in July. The mother continued to misuse prescription medication, and

the children reported the mother breaking items in the home and throwing things.

There were also concerns about black mold in the home and prescription

medication and dangerous objects left within the children’s reach. Although HHS

implemented safety plans, the mother did not comply with them. By August, she

refused to agree to a safety plan.

The State petitioned to remove the children from the parents’ legal and

physical custody. The juvenile court granted the petition, finding that “removal is

necessary to avoid imminent risk to the children’s life or health,” continuing in the

home was contrary to the children’s welfare, and further efforts would not prevent

removal. In its September disposition order, the juvenile court confirmed the

children’s CINA adjudication and continued removal.
4

II. Scope of Review.

We review CINA proceedings de novo. See In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14, 15

(Iowa 2008). “We review ‘both the facts and the law, and we adjudicate rights

anew.’” In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001) (citations omitted). “[W]e

give weight to the juvenile court’s fact-findings, especially when considering the

credibility of witnesses, but those findings do not bind us.” In re J.A.L., 694 N.W.2d

748, 753 (Iowa 2005). “As in all juvenile proceedings, our fundamental concern is

the best interests of the child.” K.N., 625 N.W.2d at 733.

III. Adjudicatory Grounds.

“The underlying grounds of adjudication in [CINA] cases have important

legal implications beyond the adjudication.” In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 480 (Iowa

Ct. App. 1995). The State petitioned to adjudicate the children as CINA under

Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14) (2024). The CINA order’s findings of

fact state, “There is clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations of the

Petition(s) filed, and the children are adjudicated in need of assistance pursuant to

Iowa Code Sections 232.96A(3)(b), and (14) and the aid of the Court is required.”

But in the decretal portion of the order, the juvenile court only states the children

are adjudicated as CINA without citing a specific code provision for the

adjudication. The mother argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to identify

the provisions for the adjudication in the decretal order.

“Though the judgment may contain findings of fact and conclusions of law,

it is only the decretal portion of the [order] that constitutes an adjudication.” Wolf

v. Murrane, 199 N.W.2d 90, 95 (Iowa 1972). The decretal order “must be certain

and in intelligible form so the parties understand the adjudication.” In re Est. of
5

Woodroffe, 742 N.W.2d 94, 107 (Iowa 2007) (citation omitted). An indefinite and

uncertain decretal order may be void. See id. The question is whether failing to

cite the statutory provisions under which the court was adjudicating the children as

CINA renders the court’s order so indefinite and uncertain as to be void.

We interpret the court’s order as we interpret other written instruments. See

TSB Holdings, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Adjustment for City of Iowa City, 913 N.W.2d 1, 16

(Iowa 2018). We determine the court’s intent from all parts of the order, giving

every word a consistent, effective, and reasonable meaning. See id. “Moreover,

we seek to give force to those matters that are clearly implied, as well as

expressed.” Id. We can look at the pleadings and other proceedings to determine

the meaning when the order is ambiguous. See id.

Following the rules of construction and interpretation, it is clear the juvenile

court adjudicated the children as CINA under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b)

and (14). The State petitioned for a CINA adjudication on those grounds, and the

court’s fact findings state clear and convincing evidence supported granting the

State’s petition as to both. Although the juvenile court failed to restate the code

section in the decretal order, its intent to adjudicate the children as CINA under

section 232.96A(3)(b) and (14) is clearly implied.

Both the mother and the father contend there was not clear and convincing

evidence supporting the CINA adjudication on both grounds. The State bears the

burden of proving the grounds for adjudication by clear and convincing evidence.

In re N.C., 952 N.W.2d 151, 153 (Iowa 2020). Clear and convincing evidence

exists when there is “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a

particular conclusion drawn from the evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).
6

We begin with the CINA adjudication under section 232.96A(3)(b). The

juvenile court may adjudicate children as CINA under section 232.96A(3)(b) if they

have suffered or are imminently likely to suffer harmful effects because of a

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

“Harmful effects” means “harm to a child’s physical, mental, or social well-being”

or an imminently likelihood that such harm will occur. See In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d

36, 41–42 (Iowa 2014).

Clear and convincing evidence supports the CINA adjudication under

section 232.96A(3)(b). The children are at risk of harm from dangerous items like

razor blades and prescription medications that are accessible in the home.

Witnessing domestic violence between parents can cause children mental harm.

It also exposes the children to imminent physical harm as they are likely to be

injured during the melee. The mother’s failure to address her substance use and

mental health also places the children at risk of harm.2 The mother has exhibited

erratic behavior, breaking and throwing objects around the home. On one

occasion, the mother threw a full can of beverage at her three-year-old child’s

2 In considering whether termination of parental rights serves a child’s best
interests, we often note that the parents’ past performance “may indicate the
quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.” In re C.K., 558
N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 1997). The mother argues the juvenile court erred by
giving weight to the parents’ history of domestic violence, substance use, and
mental-health issues in adjudicating the children as CINA because a prior CINA
proceeding should not be grounds for a new CINA adjudication.
The juvenile court adjudicated the children as CINA based on recent events
rather than past acts. But “[w]hat’s past is prologue.” In re P.M.A.O., No. 11-0907,
2011 WL 3480975, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011) (alteration in original)
(quoting William Shakespeare, The Tempest act 2, sc. 1, l. 253–54). The juvenile
court did not act improperly by considering relevant history to provide context for
the parents’ recent acts.
7

head. The mother counters that there were no visible marks on the child. Although

visible marks are one indication of physical abuse, they are not required for a CINA

adjudication under section 232.96A(3)(b); the act of throwing an object at a

toddler’s head endangers the child’s physical and mental well-being even if no

contact is made.

We turn then to the CINA adjudication under section 232.96A(14). The

juvenile court may adjudicate children as CINA under section 232.96A(14) if they

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

care because of a parent’s mental incapacity, mental condition, imprisonment, or

substance use. The mother argues that the State failed to identify any mental-

health diagnosis to support the CINA adjudication. That failure is due to the

mother’s lack of cooperation with HHS as she has not allowed access to her

mental-health records or obtained a mental-health assessment. Regardless, a

mental-health diagnosis is not required for a CINA adjudication under

section 232.96A(14).

Clear and convincing evidence supports the CINA adjudication under

section 232.96A(14). The mother has a long history of substance use, and she

exhibited paranoid and erratic behavior in the months leading up to the CINA

adjudication. As a result, the children are imminently likely not to receive adequate

care based on the mother’s mental condition, substance use, or both. The State’s

failure to identify the exact cause is irrelevant, especially when doing so requires

the mother’s cooperation.
8

IV. Reasonable Efforts.

The mother also contests the reasonable efforts made by the State to avoid

removing the children from her custody. Her complaint centers on one line in the

CINA disposition order, noting that neither parent engaged in any domestic

violence services since the removal hearing. The mother complains that the HHS

never recommended or provided those services, nor were they ordered by the

juvenile court.

The juvenile court removed the children from the parents’ custody after the

mother violated the order preventing her from having contact with the father and

refused to agree to a safety plan. One month later, the juvenile court entered a

CINA disposition order in which it confirmed the children as CINA and continued

their removal based on the parents’ failure to engage in or respond to services. In

its findings, the court noted that neither parent had engaged in any domestic

violence services since the removal hearing.

The evidence supports finding that the children’s removal from the mother’s

custody was necessary to ensure their continued safety. It also supports finding

their continued removal is necessary in light of the mother’s overall lack of

engagement with the services offered by HHS. As the juvenile court found, the

mother

needs to start taking the recommendations of HHS seriously, and
cooperating with services. Continuing to deny that services are
needed flies in the face of the evidence that numerous, serious safety
concerns persist. Progress toward reunification will be stymied until
the parents acknowledge their need for mental health treatment,
substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, and safe
and stable housing.
9

We find the mother’s argument unavailing.

V. Best Interests.

The mother argues the juvenile court failed to weigh that the best interests

of the children were to remain with her. As the juvenile court noted, “[p]rogress

toward reunification will be stymied until the parents acknowledge their need for

mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services,

and safe and stable housing.” Until she achieves progress in these areas, we

cannot find that reunification is in the children’s best interests. See In re J.E., 723

N.W.2d 793, 802 (Iowa 2006) (Cady, J., concurring specially) (explaining that the

children’s safety and their need for a permanent home are the “defining elements”

in determining best interests).

Because substantial evidence shows that the children’s initial and continued

removal is necessary to ensure their safety, we affirm.

AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.