In the Interest of J.B. and J.B., Jr., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 26-0064
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of J.B. and J.B., Jr., Minor Children,
S.H., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County,
The Honorable Elizabeth Batey, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Matthew B. De Jong of De Jong Law Firm P.C., Rochester, Minnesota,
attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Danielle Ellingson of Noah, Smith, Sloter & Ellingson P.L.C., Charles City,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.

1
AHLERS, Presiding Judge.

The juvenile court adjudicated two children to be children in need of
assistance (CINA). As part of the adjudicatory order and subsequent
dispositional order, the juvenile court suspended visits between the mother
and the children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.102A(2) (2025), finding
interactions between the mother and children would pose a serious risk of
emotional harm to the children. The mother appeals, challenging the
suspension of her visits with the children.

Before addressing the merits of the mother’s claim, we first detail the
events that led to the children’s adjudication as CINA.

A bystander noticed a young child alone at a grocery store one
morning. Police were notified and arrived to help the seven-year-old boy.1
They learned that he had been with his nine-year-old sister but could no
longer find her. When they took the boy to his home, his mother’s wife yelled
at the child. She then became upset with the police officers and told them to
leave and take the child with them. On the way to the police station, they
found the sister walking alone.

Once at the police station, the children revealed that they were not
allowed to be at their home during the day—typically leaving around seven
or eight o’clock in the morning and not returning until seven or eight o’clock
at night. They would not be given any breakfast before having to leave the
home. They explained that they would find free popcorn at retail stores or
would ask strangers for money to get food during the day. When at home,
they would often be left to share a packet of ramen noodles for sustenance for
the entire day. This was a frequent form of punishment for the children for

1
This boy and his older sister are the children who are the subject of this case.

2
wetting the bed, arriving home too late, or having an attitude. The older child
would often vomit, sometimes more than once a day, after eating the ramen
due to her dislike of the food and how often they were “put on noodles,” as
the children called the punishment. Meanwhile the mother and her wife
would eat “real meals.” The boy would later disclose to a foster parent that
at times the children would go through the trash to eat scraps of food
discarded by the mother and her wife.

When a child protective worker from the Iowa Department of Health
and Human Services asked the boy if he was safe in the family home, he
disclosed that the mother and her wife would whip him with an electrical
cord from a gaming system, which left distinctive markings on his body. The
boy later told another worker that the mother would sometimes heat the
electrical cord by soaking it in boiling water before whipping him. The boy’s
report was corroborated by the marks on his body. The sister said she was
hit in the same manner, and she had similar markings on her body. The
children also explained that their mother would hit them with a hanger.
During their interactions with the protective worker, “the children
demonstrated fear of returning to the care of their mom and stepmom.”

Initially, the children were removed from the family home and placed
in foster care. But following an approved, expedited Interstate Compact on
the Placement of Children investigation, the children were placed with their
father in Michigan. As a worker drove the children to meet the father, they
passed by a sign for Waterloo—a town the children associate with the mother
because the mother lived there. The children expressed anxiety about being
in the same town as their mother, and the worker “had to continuously let
them know that [they] were not going to stop unless it was a red light or stop
sign.” The children would ask each time they passed a building if their

3
mother lived there, and the worker had to reassure them that they were safe
in her car.

With these facts in mind, we turn to the mother’s challenge to the
juvenile court’s decision to suspend her visits with the children. “Visitation
between a parent and child is an important ingredient to the goal of
reunification. However, the nature and extent of visitation is always
controlled by the best interests of the child. This standard may warrant
limited parental visitation.” In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct. App.
1996) (internal citations omitted). Visits may be suspended only when there
is substantial evidence that the visits “would pose a serious risk of physical
or emotional harm to the child.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(2).

Following our de novo review of the record,2 we agree with the juvenile
court that suspension of the mother’s visits with the children was necessary
because the visits pose a serious risk of emotional harm to the children at this
time. The mother psychologically and physically abused the children when
they were in her custody. She withheld food from them to the point they both
suffered from protein malnutrition but would eat full meals in front of them.
And she would beat them with various objects, including an electrical cord
heated in boiling water. The children are terrified of the mother. That was
evident to the case workers when the children disclosed the abuse. And the
extent of the children’s fear was put in sharp focus when they drove by the
sign for Waterloo. The mere thought that their mother could be nearby put
the children on high alert and made them fearful. Moreover, we note there
are no-contact orders between the mother and children in related criminal
proceedings. While that is not dispositive as to what visitation limitations

2
We review challenges to the CINA proceedings de novo. M.B., 553 N.W.2d at
344.

4
should be imposed in the CINA cases, the imposition of the no-contact
orders underscores the inherent risk to these children should they have
contact with the mother.3

Because the children were only briefly placed in foster care and have
recently been placed in their father’s care in Michigan, they have yet to begin
therapy. But the father understands their therapeutic needs are immediate,
and he is working diligently to get the children a therapist. Once the children
have had a chance to participate in therapy to address the abuse and their fear
of their mother, then the children may have the tools to safely interact with
her. But before then, we agree with the juvenile court that visits with the
mother pose a serious risk of emotional harm to them.

The mother complains that “[t]here are no specific findings relating to
the suspending of interactions between [herself ] and her children.” But our
review of the transcripts and the dispositional order reveals the basis for the
court’s suspension of visits and that the court made the findings required by
section 232.102A(2). We are not persuaded by the mother’s claim that “[n]o
party called the children’s therapist to substantiate the suspension of parent
child interactions.” As previously noted, the children have not yet begun
therapy, so there was no therapist to testify. And, in this instance, we do not
find such testimony necessary to conclude that contact with the mother
would be emotionally damaging for the children.

Finally, the mother contends that the juvenile court did not consider a
less restrictive alternative than suspension of visits. But her contention is not

3
Because the mother is prohibited from having contact with the children due to
the no-contact order in her criminal case, we question whether the mother’s challenge in
this case is ripe for determination. We have chosen to assume without deciding that it is
and proceed to address the merits of her challenge.

5
supported by the record. It is clear that the juvenile court contemplated less
restrictive options when it asked the parties about the mother potentially
sending letters to the children if vetted by a therapist or how contact could
occur should the criminal no-contact order be lifted. It is also clear that the
court is considering how it can move toward contact with the mother once a
therapist becomes involved to help the children with their trauma.

Following our review, we see no basis to reverse the juvenile court’s
suspension of visits at this time. However, we emphasize the children’s need
for therapy for their own healing and so they can eventually engage in visits
with the mother if it is determined that such contact can safely occur.

AFFIRMED.

6