No. 5-195 / 05-0257.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 31, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the order adjudicating her four children to be in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Mains of the Mains Law Office, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Celene Coffman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, for children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
VOGEL, P.J.
Natasha G. is the mother of Kierra, born in 1995, Marcasia, born in 1997, Tashila, born in 1999, and Teontae, born in 2004. When Teontae was born, he tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine and crack cocaine. Natasha admitted to the use of crack early on during the pregnancy and methamphetamine toward the end of the pregnancy. It was also learned that Natasha did not seek out or receive prenatal care during her pregnancy with Teontae.
On August 24, 2004, the State filed a petition claiming the children were in need of assistance (CINA) and Natasha consented to the removal of all four children. Following a later contested hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated Kierra, Marcasia, and Tashila to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2003) and Teontae to be in need of assistance under sections 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), (n) and (o). Natasha appeals.[1]
We review CINA proceedings denovo. In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). While we give weight to the trial court’s findings of fact, we are not bound by them. Id. It is the State’s burden to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
On appeal, Natasha maintains the court improperly relied on “the presumptive and imminent danger parental drug abuse holds for children.” She claims that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the three older children were harmed by her drug use. She further maintains “dismissal of the CINA case is mandatory because the aid of the court is not required.”
On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence that the children should be adjudicated CINA. Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2) define a child in need of assistance to be a child “[w]ho 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.” (Emphasis added.) The State has the duty to make sure that every child within its borders receives appropriate care and treatment. In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d 323, 329
(Iowa 1989). Our juvenile statutes are designed to effectuate that duty. In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Thus, they are preventive as well as remedial. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1990). Their goal is to prevent probable harm to the child; they do not require delay until after the harm has happened. Id.
As noted, Natasha admittedly used methamphetamine and crack cocaine and did not seek prenatal care while pregnant with Teontae. Dr. Rizwan Shah examined Teontae and testified that he exhibited signs typical of children who have been exposed to drugs in utero, including increased muscle tone, shaking, and tremors. She opined that Teontae may suffer long-term defects due to the drug exposure, but cautioned it is still too early to tell.
We conclude the juvenile court properly adjudicated all four children CINA. The court’s aid was indeed required, both to address the harm already suffered by Teontae, and also the imminent risk presented to Kierra, Marcasia, and Tashila. While there is no specific evidence of a direct, tangible injury to the three older children, it would be imprudent to await such harm to befall them. Natasha’s distressing choices and unhealthy behavior, while pregnant with one child and caring for the other three, clearly justifies juvenile court intervention and the adjudication of the children.
AFFIRMED.
Page 129