In the Interest of A.C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1689
Filed January 9, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.,
Minor Child,

J.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey,

Judge.

A mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudicating her

daughter in need of assistance and continuing the daughter’s removal from her

custody. AFFIRMED.

Sarah Wenke, Ottumwa, for appellant mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Samuel K. Erhardt, Ottumwa, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

After relapsing on methamphetamine in June 2024, a mother agreed to a

safety plan that placed her then-eight-year-old daughter in the care of a relative.

Later, the juvenile court adjudicated the daughter in need of assistance and

removed the daughter from the mother’s custody. By the first dispositional hearing,

the mother believed she had progressed enough that the daughter’s adjudication

was no longer warranted, and even if it were, continued removal was not the least

restrictive disposition. The juvenile court disagreed and reaffirmed the daughter’s

adjudication and removal. The mother appeals.

On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports

adjudicating the daughter in need of assistance. The mother’s addiction and

possession of paraphernalia has impacted the daughter—the daughter reported

the mother having “glass tube things” in the home and could describe her mother’s

behavioral changes while using. The mother’s fiancé, who lived in the home, also

admitted to using methamphetamine. And the mother and fiancé were twice pulled

over while driving with drugs and paraphernalia in the car, and that car was kept

on the premises of the child’s home. As for removal, the mother’s appeal from the

initial ex parte removal is now moot. And after the dispositional hearing, the

juvenile court appropriately extended the daughter’s removal. The mother’s history

of prior illegal substance use, coupled with irregularities and inconsistencies with

the mother’s testing, all indicate further proof of consistent sobriety is needed to

ensure a safe home environment for the daughter. Thus, we affirm.
3

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

The mother and her daughter came to the attention of the Iowa Department

of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) in early June 2024.1 During an in-home

visit, the mother and her fiancé both admitted to using methamphetamine the night

before. The HHS social worker also spoke to the daughter, who relayed her

mother kept “glass tube things” in the home, which she was not allowed to touch.

Later discussions with the daughter revealed she could describe the appearance

and consistency of THC wax. And she could explain how her mother’s behavior

changes when using illegal substances. Also around this time, two traffic stops

led to six criminal charges against the mother—she was found possessing

methamphetamine, a methamphetamine pipe, and other illegal substances.2 As a

result, HHS created a safety plan with the family that placed the daughter in a

relative’s care.

In July, the mother enrolled in outpatient treatment. As part of that

treatment, an issue arose with the mother’s Adderall prescription and her urine

analyses. The first analysis came back positive for amphetamine or

methamphetamine, which required the mother to pay $12.50 for confirmation

testing to confirm she was only positive for amphetamine (consistent with her

1 We avoid using the parties’ names to respect their privacy because this opinion—

unlike the juvenile court’s order—is public. Compare Iowa Code § 232.147(2)
(2024), with id. §§ 602.4301(2), 602.5110.
2 During a June interview with HHS, the mother expressed frustration with HHS

involvement, as she had arranged for a nanny to care for her daughter during
periods when she was using, including these traffic stops. According to HHS, the
mother stated she “did not understand why there is a problem if she was using
methamphetamine if she was not using around her daughter and she had a nanny
in the home that was sober.”
4

prescription use). Yet when a second analysis also came back positive for

amphetamine or methamphetamine, the mother did not want to again pay for

confirmation testing and expressed frustration at having to confirm every time.

HHS was concerned that, without confirmation testing, the mother could continue

using methamphetamine and merely assign the positive result to her prescribed

Adderall. To that end, HHS offered to perform (random) patch tests that would not

need confirmation testing, but the mother refused.

In August, the State petitioned to adjudicate the daughter in need of

assistance. While awaiting the hearing, HHS and the mother could not agree to a

continuation of the safety plan, so HHS obtained an ex parte temporary removal

order continuing the placement with the same relative. At the adjudicatory hearing,

a social worker explained that HHS’s primary concern was the mother’s substance

use. HHS did not “have any negative testing” from the mother, and she declined

HHS’s patch tests. Without proof of sobriety, HHS believed the adjudication was

necessary to protect the daughter.

On September 6, the juvenile court adjudicated the daughter, now nine

years old, in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(b), (14),

(16)(a), 16(b), and (16)(d) (2024). And it reaffirmed the daughter’s removal,

keeping custody with HHS and the daughter’s placement with the relative.

Between the September adjudication and the October dispositional hearing,

HHS did not ask the mother to do any drug tests. HHS explained its lack of testing

was because the mother refused patch tests—citing an adhesive allergy—and hair

tests would not be appropriate. As for the mother’s urine-analysis testing under

her treatment program, the mother submitted one test in late September, but the
5

lab rejected her sample because it appeared substituted. The mother denied any

tampering.

During the dispositional hearing, HHS argued that given the mother’s history

with illegal substance use—particularly relapsing after periods of sobriety—the

daughter should remain out of her mother’s custody until a longer period of sobriety

is established. The mother disagreed, testifying that she follows her treatment

plan, HHS never asked her to test, and all visits with her daughter have gone well.

As for the daughter’s well-being, the mother emphasized that the removal forced

the daughter to change schools, leaving behind friends she had known since

kindergarten.

The juvenile court reaffirmed the daughter’s adjudication and removal. The

court first noted that the mother’s adhesive allergy has never been medically

diagnosed, and instead is based on the mother’s own self-reports. The court also

expressed concern that the mother’s latest urine analysis was rejected as

unreliable. And so, the court reasoned that it would not return the daughter to the

mother’s care until the mother “demonstrate[s] a prolonged period of sobriety

through compliance with drug screens that are negative for illegal substances, and

through regular attendance in substance abuse treatment.” The mother appeals.

II. Adjudicating the Daughter In Need of Assistance

The mother first disputes whether the daughter continues to be in need of

assistance. The State carries the burden to prove an adjudicatory ground under

section 232.96A by clear and convincing evidence. See Iowa Code § 232.96(2).

Because different grounds may carry different consequences down the road, we

consider every ground challenged by the mother, even if we affirm one or more.
6

In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2014). We review the juvenile court’s findings

de novo, giving due weight to the court’s credibility and factual findings. Id. at 40.

And, as always, we are guided by what is best for the daughter. Id.

First, clear and convincing evidence supports adjudicating the daughter in

need of assistance under subsection 3, paragraph “b.” See Iowa Code

§ 232.96A(3)(b) (allowing adjudication if a “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”). The mother has

an ongoing methamphetamine addiction, kept paraphernalia in the home, and the

daughter could tell when her mother was under the influence. Cf. J.S., 846 N.W.2d

at 37 (“We have no difficulty concluding . . . that a parent’s methamphetamine

addiction by itself can result in ‘harmful effects’ to the child, thereby justifying state

intervention to protect the child.”). Although the mother insists her use has always

been outside the home, the daughter’s statements indicate otherwise. And we are

further unpersuaded that, because the mother hired a nanny to care for the

daughter while the mother was using for several days, that the daughter was safely

cared for—the mother knew the nanny had her parental rights to her own children

terminated. So we find the mother’s drug use in fact places her daughter at risk

and undermines her ability to ensure adequate supervision.3

3 The mother also disputes adjudication under subsection 14. See Iowa Code
§ 232.96A(14) (allowing adjudication if a “child’s parent . . . suffers from . . . drug
or alcohol abuse that results in the child not receiving adequate care or being
imminently likely not to receive adequate care”). But she offers no independent
legal or factual argument to support her opposition on appeal. And we cannot
supply that advocacy for her. So we likewise affirm adjudication under
subsection 14.
7

Second, clear and convincing evidence likewise supports adjudication

under paragraphs “a,” “b,” and “d” of subsection 16. See Iowa Code

§ 232.96A(16)(a) (allowing adjudication when a parent “[u]nlawfully uses,

possesses, manufactures, cultivates, or distributes a dangerous substance in the

presence of the child”); id. § 232.96A(16)(b) (allowing adjudication when a parent

“[k]nowingly allows the use, possession, manufacture, cultivation, or distribution of

a dangerous substance by another person in the presence of the child”); id.

§ 232.96A(16)(d) (allowing adjudication when a parent “[u]nlawfully uses,

possesses, manufactures, cultivates, or distributes a dangerous substance . . . in

the child’s home, on the premises, or in a motor vehicle located on the premises”).

The daughter’s statements—in particular her ability to describe her mother’s

behavioral changes while using—support finding the mother has used in her

daughter’s presence. The mother’s fiancé also lives in the home and admitted to

using methamphetamine with the mother, including using one night before they

were caring for the daughter the next morning. And the fiancé was driving during

both traffic stops—where methamphetamine, marijuana, and pipes were

discovered in the mother’s purse and inside the vehicle—and the car involved was

parked outside the home when social workers visited. Thus, we affirm the

daughter’s adjudication under paragraphs “a,” “b,” and “d” of subsection 16.

III. Removal

The mother also seeks to appeal the necessity of both the initial ex parte

removal and the continued removal after the dispositional hearing. As for the ex

parte removal, that issue is moot. See In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Iowa

1994). The juvenile court confirmed removal was appropriate both in its
8

adjudicatory and dispositional orders. So “[a]ny error committed in granting the

temporary ex parte order cannot now be remedied.” Id.

As for the daughter’s continued removal following the dispositional hearing,

the mother disputes that removal is the least restrictive disposition. See Iowa Code

§ 232.99(4). But we share the juvenile court’s concerns about her ongoing

sobriety. For starters, the mother has a history of relapsing after periods of

sobriety, and the evidence is mixed on the mother’s current commitment to

sobriety—she reported feeling she could use some impairing substances

recreationally without struggling or becoming addicted. We also share the court’s

concerns with the mother’s refusal to submit to patch tests—she could not identify

what kind of adhesive she was allergic to, has produced no medical evaluations

proving the allergy, and rebuffed the suggestion that she at least try wearing the

patch to see if the particular adhesive would agitate her skin. That refusal, coupled

with the rejected urine analysis shortly before the dispositional hearing, suggests

further proof of consistent sobriety is needed before the daughter is returned to her

care. See In re J.P., No. 19-1633, 2020 WL 110425, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9,

2020) (explaining “[a] parent’s methamphetamine use, in itself, creates a

dangerous environment for children”).

We are sympathetic to the mother’s desire to have her daughter returned to

her care, and we are encouraged by their positive visits thus far. But we must put

the daughter’s best interest at the forefront. And so, we agree with the juvenile

court that, to ensure a safe environment for the daughter, additional time to show

meaningful sobriety is necessary.

AFFIRMED.