No. 4-455 / 04-0682.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
July 28, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Constance Cohen, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Wendy, the mother of Jean, appeals from the juvenile court permanency order placing Jean in the guardianship and custody of Wendy’s mother. AFFIRMED.
Debra Hockett-Clark, West Des Moines, for appellant-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michelle Chenoweth, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Michael Sorci, Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
SACKETT, C.J.
Wendy, the mother of Jean, appeals from the juvenile court permanency order placing Jean in the guardianship and custody of Wendy’s mother. Wendy contends the court should have returned Jean to her custody. We affirm.
Jean, born in 1992, was removed from Wendy’s care in October 2002 and placed in foster care. The State filed a petition alleging Jean was a child in need of assistance because Wendy had absconded with her in violation of an Ohio custodial order and because Wendy was physically abusive[1] and mentally ill. Jean was found to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2001) on November 15, 2002 following a hearing. Jean’s father informed the State he did not want custody.[2] Jean’s status as a child in need of assistance was confirmed at dispositional hearings, as was the finding she could not be returned to Wendy’s care. After some time in foster placement, Jean was placed with her maternal grandmother, where she remains. After the permanency hearing, the grandmother was appointed Jean’s guardian. Wendy appeals.
Our review of permanency orders is de novo. In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 1995).
On appeal, Wendy contends the court erred in appointing her mother as guardian for Jean instead of returning Jean to her care. She also contends the placement is not in Jean’s best interest. The State responds that Wendy still has unresolved psychiatric concerns, she is a risk of removing Jean from the court’s jurisdiction if they are reunited at this time, and Jean needs the stability and security provided by her grandmother at this time.
During the two years after absconding with Jean from Ohio, Wendy and Jean lived in about twenty different places in the United States and Mexico. When Jean was removed from Wendy’s care, she was about a year behind in school. Wendy has been diagnosed with pre-menstrual syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder. Other possible conditions include histrionic personality disorder with narcissistic borderline and paranoid traits, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizotypal personality disorder. She has resisted court-ordered psychiatric evaluations and services, denying she has any problem. When taking medication and participating in therapy, Wendy acts appropriately. When inconsistent in her participation, she can become agitated, disruptive, and non-responsive. Her behavior in court proceedings has necessitated recesses and delays. She has responded negatively to efforts by care providers to address concerns with her interaction with them and with Jean during visitation. Although she has obtained appropriate housing and is self-employed, she has not demonstrated sufficient stability or resolution of her mental health issues to permit Jean’s return to her care. Jean is doing well in her grandmother’s home and catching up in school.
Termination of Wendy’s parental rights is not appropriate at this time, but Jean cannot be returned to Wendy’s care. We find the permanency option ordered by the juvenile court to be appropriate and in Jean’s best interest.
Accordingly, we affirm the permanency order placing Jean in the guardianship of her grandmother.
AFFIRMED.