No. 5-372 / 05-0430Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, William Thomas, Judge.
S.D. and C.R. appeal the modification of a dispositional order in this children-in-need-of-assistance case. AFFIRMED.
Ronald Ricklefs, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Michael Lindeman of Lindeman Law Office, Cedar Rapids, for appellant father of D.R.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
John Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for father of D.D.
Barbara Connolly of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
MAHAN, P.J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Shelly is the mother of Derek, born in November 1996, and Dakota, born in November 1998. Christopher is the father of Derek, and Matthew is the father of Dakota. Both children are quite developmentally delayed, Derek more so than Dakota. Shelly is married to Matthew, and the children lived with them. The family came to the attention of the Department of Human Services in January 2003 based on unexplained injuries to the children. On investigation, social workers discovered the home was unsanitary and contained safety hazards. There were eleven cats and three dogs in the home.
The children were removed in February 2003, but were returned about one month later after the parents made some efforts to clean up the home. In May 2003 the juvenile court adjudicated Derek and Dakota to be children in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) (2003) (parent is imminently likely to neglect child), (c)(2) (child is likely to suffer harm due to parent’s failure to supervise), (g) (parent fails to provide adequate food, clothing, or shelter) and (e) (parent fails to provide needed medical treatment). The dispositional order provided that the children should remain in the care of the parents, subject to departmental supervision.
In November 2003 the State sought to modify the dispositional order to remove the children from the home, noting the parents had not been cooperative and there remained concerns about cleanliness in the home. The parents then began to cooperate, and they cleaned up the home. The State agreed to dismiss the application for modification.
In July 2004 the State again sought to remove the children, noting the parents were not regularly participating in parenting classes and Matthew had not attended an anger management program. The home was very cluttered and dirty, and had an overwhelming odor of cat urine. In an October 2004 order, the juvenile court denied the request for modification, finding that at the time of the hearing the parents had cleaned up the home and the parents were more open to seeking services for the children. The court noted, however, that the denial was “without prejudice to its renewal within sixty days.”
In December 2004 the State filed a third application to modify the dispositional order to remove the children from the home. Although the family had moved to a new home, that home soon became filthy. The smell of cat urine was very strong, and the children sometimes came to school with animal feces on their clothes. Also, the parents were not working with the school regarding the children’s special education needs. On March 5, 2005, the juvenile court ordered that the children should be removed from the home. Shelly and Christopher have appealed.[1]
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). Although we give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, we are not bound by them. Id. Our primary concern is the best interests of the children. In re E.H., 578 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Iowa 1998).
III. Merits
Shelly and Christopher contend the State did not show there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier modification applications. Under section 232.103(1), a dispositional order may be modified at any time. A party seeking a modification of the custody provisions of a prior dispositional order must show the circumstances have so materially and substantially changed that the best interest of the children requires such a change in custody. In re C.D., 509 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993); In re J.F., 386 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986).
On our de novo review, we find there has been a substantial change in circumstances which necessitates removing the children from the home. The reports of the service providers show that the parents were becoming less cooperative over time. The parents refused to allow service providers to inspect certain areas of the home, which was an important issue based on the sanitary problems in the home. Shelly and Matthew yelled obscenities at a worker, and Matthew stated, “You don’t want to make me mad because it won’t be pretty.”
There was evidence of continuing cleanliness problems in the home. The parents continued to keep animals despite the fact service providers had told them to remove the animals due to sanitation concerns. Not only was the home unsanitary, the children came to school with poor hygiene and smelling of cat urine. There were also continuing concerns about the parents’ ability to meet the children’s special needs.
We conclude the juvenile court properly modified the dispositional order to remove the children from the home.
AFFIRMED.