Search Results for: Child abuse

Recently, the Des Moines Register published an article regarding two lawsuits filed against the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS).  The lawsuits allege that children in Iowa are being removed from their homes as a result of voluntary agreements signed by non-custodial parents.  Voluntary removal agreements are not part of any official court proceedings.  They are used outside of formal court supervision to remove children from reported harmful situations.

DHS explains that voluntary removal agreements are used as a first option in an attempt to place the child with relatives or foster care parents.  They believe that with the agreement being voluntary, DHS will be able to remove the child from any perceived harm more quickly than if they had to file a formal Child in Need of Assistance petition and have the child declared a ward of the state.

Concerns

More Children Being Placed in Foster Care

There are, however, concerns about the voluntary removal process.  There are more foster care placements because of the voluntary agreements.  An Iowa City attorney, Natalie Cronk, has filed the aforementioned two lawsuits claiming that as a result of the voluntary agreements, children are being placed in foster care without proof that they were unsafe in their original home.  Cronk states that the burden of proof has shifted to the parents to prove that their home is unsafe, rather than DHS having to prove there are unsafe conditions in the home.

Non-Custodial Parents Signing Voluntary Removal Agreements

Also, a major concern with voluntary removal agreements is that non-custodial parents are allowed to sign them.  In the two lawsuits filed, non-custodial parents signed voluntary removal agreements causing the child to be removed from their custodial parents.  DHS states that they cannot know who has custody when they respond to allegations of abuse.

Voluntary Removal Agreements and Parents’ Rights

Cronk believes that voluntary removal agreements violate parents’ rights, however, parents sign them because they are at risk of losing their child permanently.  Another concern is the lack of court supervision and lack of representation with the agreements.  Children do not have their own guardian ad litems, and it is DHS social workers who make decisions rather than judges.  Some in the child welfare system are concerned because there are voluntary removal agreements being used in cases involving serious risks to children, including meth, sexual abuse and domestic violence.

DHS attempts to take parents’ rights into consideration by involving them in family team meetings.  These meetings involve all of the parties and involved professionals of a case together to make decisions about the child’s welfare.

Violation of Parents’ Rights or Focusing DHS Services?

The question raised by these two lawsuits is whether the voluntary removal agreements are a threat to parents’ rights or a way for DHS to better focus their attention on very high risk cases and provide attention to all children who need it in Iowa.

There has been a similar situation in Illinois where a class action lawsuit against the use of voluntary safety plans (Illinois’ equivalent to Iowa’s voluntary removal agreements).  The Family Defense Center out of Chicago won that case against the State of Illinois, however the decision was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that any safety plan is voluntary under the law.

 

 

Share

Termination of Parental Rights Ruling

The Iowa Court of Appeals entered a judgment affirming a ruling by Judge Constance Cohen, of the District Court of Polk County, in In the Interest of L.C.H.  The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the parents of a young infant.  The father did not appeal the decision.  The mother was incarcerated and the child tested positive for marijuana at the child’s birth.  The child was removed from the mother’s custody and the maternal grandmother provided care for the child.

The baby was adjudicated to be a Child in Need of Assistance, or CINA.  The mother continued to be incarcerated, however, did complete parenting and victim impact classes.  While at a halfway house, the mother took advantage of visits with her child.  Despite some progress, the court found the mother’s insight into her drug, alcohol and violence was lacking.

Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

Eventually, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents when it became clear that the infant would not be able to be returned to their care in the foreseeable future.  The court terminate the parental rights of the mother under Iowa Code Sections 232.116(1)(d), (h), (l) (2011):

232.116  GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.

1.  Except as provided in subsection 3, the court may order the termination of both the parental rights with respect to a child and the relationship between the parent and the child on any of the following grounds:

d.  The court finds that both of the following have occurred:

(1)  The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding.

(2)  Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.

h.  The court finds that all of the following have occurred:

(1)  The child is three years of age or younger.

(2)  The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.

(3)  The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.

(4)  There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.

l.  The court finds that all of the following have occurred:

(1)  The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.

(2)  The parent has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem, and presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.

(3)  There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home.

Unfortunately, the mother had last seen her child 4 months previously, causing the court to find the child “has no significant attachment (to the mother) because of incarceration.”  The court also noted the mother has a “severe and chronic substance abuse problem” and that the mother is not willing to admit she has a problem.  Without “an admission that there is a problem, change is unlikely.”

Guardianship by Grandmother?

In her appeal, the mother argues that a guardianship by the maternal grandmother is the appropriate course of action rather than a termination of her parental rights.  However, the court notes that a guardianship is not a “preferred outcome” for a young infant.  The court describes that chaotic conditions in the parent’s lives and comes to the conclusion that the baby would not be able to return to the parents any time in the foreseeable future.

In Iowa, district probate courts have jurisdiction over guardianships.  Guardians are responsible for the physical custody of the ward.  Unlike conservators, they are not responsible for the ward’s financial decisions.

The baby was thriving under the maternal grandmother’s care, and the grandmother was willing to adopt. So, although the court was not required to terminate parental rights when there is a relative who has legal custody of the child (Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a)), here the court felt it was necessary.  They did not find clear and convincing evidence that termination would be detrimental to the child (Iowa Code 232.116(3)(c)).

Share

Recently, CNN reported on a disturbing story  involving a set of Egyptian parents in a United Arab Emirates airport who, rather than waiting for their son’s visa paperwork to process, decided to put him in one of their suitcases and continue with their travels.  Their 5 month old son was discovered by a baggage x-ray machine and had been in the parent’s carry-on luggage.  The boy was reportedly in good health when found, however, the airport police reported that this was the first incident of its kind.

Child Abuse in the Middle East

The United Arab Emirates is a country consisting of a federation of seven emirates with a single national president.  With just a quick Google search, one can find many child abuse stories originating in this part of the world.  Although it does sound like efforts to minimize and eliminate child abuse are increasing, the religious and political institutions that exist in the middle east may make it more difficult to control.  Many acts that would be considered criminal in the United States (and even in the middle eastern countries) are kept secret within families because of a concern to protect an individual’s or a family’s honor.

Child Abuse in Iowa

Here in Iowa, Code section 232.68  provides the definitions of what is considered child abuse.  The Department of Human Services (DHS) has the legal authority to conduct an assessment of child abuse when it is alleged that:

  • The victim is a child
  • There has been:
    • Physical Abuse
    • Mental Injury
    • Sexual Abuse
    • Child Prostitution
    • Presence of Illegal Drugs
    • Denial of Critical Care
    • Manufacturing or Possession of a Dangerous Substance
    • Bestiality in the Presence of a Child
  • The abuse is the result of the acts or omissions of the person responsible for the care of the child

If the incident that occurred in the United Arab Emirates had happened in Iowa, it certainly could have been reported to DHS for physical abuse of a child as well as the denial of critical care.

Reporting Child Abuse in Iowa

If you believe you have witnessed child abuse in Iowa, call the Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-362-2178.  It is available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week and you may remain anonymous if you choose.  However, if the child is in imminent danger, it is important that you call 911 immediately.

 

Share

The Iowa Court of Appeals recently decided a case that involves several points including child custody, visitation and support.  The case is brought on appeal by Daniel Moyer from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County.  Daniel and his ex-wife Ashley Moyer were married in March of 2008 and had previously had a son, Gabriel, born in July 2006.   They divorced in June of 2010.  All of the issues were decided and included in the couple’s dissolution of marriage decree.

 In Re the Marriage of Ashley Moyer and Daniel Moyer

The couple lived with Dan’s parents rent and expense free while Ashley was pregnant with their child and after the birth when married.  The court finds that although living with Dan’s parents, both Dan and Ashley were ambitious and industrious.  Dan went to school for an associate’s degree in math while Ashley took care of their child and eventually attended culinary school and worked in food service.

When Dan and Ashley separated, Ashley moved out of her in-law’s home with Gabriel, however, Dan continued to care for Gabriel at night while Ashley worked.  Approximately a year later, Dan moved to Laramie, Wyoming to pursue a degree in petroleum engineering at the University of Wyoming.  He lived with his girlfriend and her child.  Ashley continued to live and work in Council Bluffs.

The divorce decree, entered August 23, 2011, granted physical care to Ashley with Dan receiving visitation when he is in Iowa, along with 6 weeks of visitation in the summer and over the Christmas holidays.  Dan was ordered to pay $195.13 per month in child support.  Soon after the decree was entered, Dan filed a combined motion for new trial, expanded findings, and interpretation.

 Court of Appeals Reviews District Court’s Child Custody, Visitation and Support Decision

 Child Custody

The Court reviews child custody decisions de novo, meaning they examine the entire record and make new judgments on each issue presented.  They will give strong consideration to the district court’s findings of fact.

In favor of his being granted child custody, Dan argues that he is the more stable parent, he had been the primary caregiver, the proximity of Gabriel to his grandparents was relied too heavily upon by the district court, and that Ashley disregards his role as a parent.  The court views all of these arguments in the light of what is in the best interest of the child.  The factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2009) guide the court:

 

3.  In considering what custody arrangement under subsection 2 is in the best interest of the minor child, the court shall consider the following factors:

 

a.  Whether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child.

b.  Whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer due to lack of active contact with and attention from both parents.

c.  Whether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs.

d.  Whether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation.

e.  Whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

f.  Whether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity.

g.  Whether one or both the parents agree or are opposed to joint custody.

h.  The geographic proximity of the parents.

i.  Whether the safety of the child, other children, or the other parent will be jeopardized by the awarding of joint custody or by unsupervised or unrestricted visitation.

j.  Whether a history of domestic abuse, as defined in section 236.2, exists.  In determining whether a history of domestic abuse exists, the court’s consideration shall include, but is not limited to, commencement of an action pursuant to section 236.3, the issuance of a protective order against the parent or the issuance of a court order or consent agreement pursuant to section 236.5, the issuance of an emergency order pursuant to section 236.6, the holding of a parent in contempt pursuant to section 664A.7, the response of a peace officer to the scene of alleged domestic abuse or the arrest of a parent following response to a report of alleged domestic abuse, or a conviction for domestic abuse assault pursuant to section 708.2A.

In regards to being the more stable parent, the court finds nothing with regard to Ashley’s employment or living situation that would hamper her ability to care for Gabriel.  In fact, they agree with the district court’s determination that Ashley actually provides the more stable environment that includes Gabriel’s grandparents.

The court also rules in Ashley’s favor in regards to the question of who was Gabriel’s primary caregiver.  The court finds that both parties are capable of caring for the child.  At trial, Ashley testified that she was in fact the primary caregiver and Dan agreed.

Dan’s argument that the district court relied too heavily upon the proximity of Gabriel to his grandparents also did not survive.  The court discusses the fact that Dan could have chosen to attend school at a University only 3 hours away that offers the same program that he is enrolled in at the University of Wyoming.  They find that although Ashley’s plans may change, at the present time, she is planning to remain in Council Bluffs near Gabriel’s extended family.  The court does not believe that the district court placed too much importance on this factor.

Finally, the court finds that although Ashley could have made better efforts at communication on certain issues with Dan, Ashley and Dan have actually been able to work together in the past.  The minor communication glitches do not warrant a finding that Ashley disregards Dan’s role as parent.

Overall, the court of appeals agrees with the district court that it is in the child’s best interest to place physical care of Gabriel with Ashley.  They mention that Dan’s decision to attend school 8 hours away from his extended family tipped the balance in favor of Ashley.

Child Visitation

Just as with child custody, the child’s best interest is the main consideration of the court when ruling on visitation.  Iowa Code section 598.41(1) guides their decision:

598.41  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

1. a.  The court may provide for joint custody of the child by the parties.  The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent.

Dan argues that the visitation schedule in the decree fails to maximize contact with both parents.  He requests additional visitation in his appeal.  He also asks for improved telephonic and electronic communication with Gabriel.  Dan also complains that the burdens of travel are placed on him.

In order to provide maximum contact with both parents, the court modifies the decree so Dan receives additional visitation during Thanksgiving and Spring Breaks.  The court also agrees that it would be fair for Ashley to have to share in the expense of Dan traveling to see Gabriel in limited circumstances.

 Child Support

The final issue the court considers is the amount of child support Dan is required to pay.  In Iowa, child support is determined by guidelines set forward by the Iowa Supreme Court.  The court determines both parent’s monthly income to arrive at the amount of child support owed.  The court decides that Dan is capable of working part time despite his demanding school schedule and that the student loans he voluntarily took out may be applied to his monthly income.  The court requires Dan to pay $195.13 in child support.

Share

Actress Katie Holmes filed for divorce from her husband of 5 years, Tom Cruise, last Thursday.   The pair met and married quickly and have been the subject of Hollywood speculation for the duration of their relationship.  Holmes, 33, has one 6 year old daughter, Suri, with Cruise.  Cruise has two adopted children from a previous marriage with actress Nicole Kidman.  It has been reported that Cruise was surprised to learn of Holmes’ filing.  This is the end of Cruise’s 3rd marriage, while Holmes’ first.

Fault vs. No Fault Divorce

Holmes filed for divorce in the state of New York.  There has been much speculation as to her motivation for filing in a “fault” divorce state.  In New York and other states that allow a petitioner to file for divorce on fault-based grounds.  In New York, you may file for a fault-based divorce based on several  grounds:

  • Cruel and Inhuman Treatment
    • Physical, verbal or emotional abuse that endangers your physical or mental well being.
    • The judge will look for occurrences in the last 5 years.
  • Abandonment
    • Your spouse must have abandoned you for a period of one or more years.
    • “Constructive Abandonment” is applicable if your spouse has refused to engage in sexual relations with you for a period of at least one year.
  • Three Consecutive Year Imprisonment
    • The imprisonment must begin after the marriage and last for a period of 3 consecutive years.
  • Adultery
    • Must be able to show that your spouse committed adultery during the marriage, which can prove to be difficult.

In Holmes’ and Cruise’s case, there is, of course, much speculation as to why Holmes would have filed in New York.  Many believe that Cruise’s intense commitment to Scientology may have played a role in their split.  In the petition, Holmes has claimed that the couple is unable to continue the marriage because of irreconcilable differences.  Cruise is expected to file a response in New York requesting the proceedings be moved to California.

Cruise and Holmes have a pre-nuptial agreement, so financial considerations will most likely not be a major issue in their divorce.  Holmes could challenge the agreement, however, the main issue will almost certainly be custody of their daughter.  Holmes has filed for sole custody of Suri along with an “appropriate” child support amount.

Iowa:  a No Fault Divorce State

Iowa is considered a no-fault divorce state.  The Iowa Code addresses dissolution of marriage in Chapter 598.

Officially called “dissolution of marriage” in Iowa, a divorce will be granted when there is evidence of a breakdown of the relationship with no likelihood it can be preserved.  There is no requirement for a spouse to place blame on the other spouse.  After filing for dissolution, a judge may require the couple to participate in conciliation efforts for a period of up to 60 days.  For example, Polk county requires the couple to participate in mediation.  Iowa Code section 598.7 addresses this requirement.  Also, there is a 90 day waiting period in Iowa from the time of filing until a judge can issue a final decree, although this requirement may be waived under certain circumstances.

It remains to be seen just how nasty Tom Cruise and Katie Holme’s divorce will be, however, we can be assured that whatever happens, there will be intense media coverage of every detail!

Share

The Iowa Supreme Court recently entered a ruling affirming the judgment of a Polk County Juvenile Court and vacating a Court of Appeals Ruling.  In the Interest of A.B. & S.B. is a case involving a termination of a father’s parental rights to two children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)d), (g), (h), and (l) (2011).

Father’s History of Drug Abuse

The father of the two children, Silverio, has a chronic substance abuse problem.  He also has been the subject of six founded reports of child abuse and has a lengthy criminal conviction history involving assault and possession of controlled substances.  Silverio has also previously had his parental rights terminated as to another child.  Nelda is the mother of the children.  She and Silverio were never married and are no longer together, their relationship filled with drugs and domestic violence.

The children involved S.B., A.B. (as well as their younger half brother, D.G.) came to the attention of DHS in November of 2010.  There were concerns about their medical care, or more accurately the lack thereof, as well as housing instability, illegal drug use in the home and truancy issues.  DHS offered services to Nelda, who the children were living with.

Eventually, the children were removed from Nelda’s care and were living with Silverio, who then was arrested on drug charges.  On the day of his arrest, the juvenile court removed the children and placed them in foster care.  Nelda was subsequently arrested for identity theft.  The children were determined to be Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code Sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2011).  After hair stat testing, unfortunately Nelda and all three children tested positive for methamphetamine.  Silverio shaved his head and was unable to provide a sample for the test.

DHS Provides Services to Facilitate Reunification

As in other Termination of Parental Rights cases, DHS provided services for the children and Nelda to facilitate reunification.  Silverio continued to exhibit destructive behavior, getting arrested for domestic abuse assault and testing positive for meth in a urine test.  However, after this arrest Silverio began to make progress by attending classes, family team meetings, and testing negative for illegal drugs.  He completed drug treatment and a mental health evaluation.  Unfortunately, Nelda did not show such progress and remained in jail.

Silverio obtained employment, resumed regular visitation with the children, attended therapy sessions, and communicated with the daycare center.  DHS remained concerned, however, stating that Silverio had problems with lying and a lack of insight into his domestic abuse, anger and drug issues.   The State recommended termination of Silverio’s parental rights.  After testifying and requesting more time to obtain custody, Silverio tested positive for methamphetamine.  The juvenile court terminated Silverio’s (and Nelda’s) parental rights.  Silverio’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (g), (h), and (l):

232.116  GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.

    • 1.  Except as provided in subsection 3, the court may order the termination of both the parental rights with respect to a child and the relationship between the parent and the child on any of the following grounds:
      • d.  The court finds that both of the following have occurred:
        • (1)  The court has previously adjudicated the child to be a child in need of assistance after finding the child to have been physically or sexually abused or neglected as the result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents, or the court has previously adjudicated a child who is a member of the same family to be a child in need of assistance after such a finding.
        • (2)  Subsequent to the child in need of assistance adjudication, the parents were offered or received services to correct the circumstance which led to the adjudication, and the circumstance continues to exist despite the offer or receipt of services.
    • g.  The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
      • (1)  The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
      •  (2)  The court has terminated parental rights pursuant to section 232.117 with respect to another child who is a member of the same family or a court of competent jurisdiction in another state has entered an order involuntarily terminating parental rights with respect to another child who is a member of the same family.
      • (3)  There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to respond to services which would correct the situation.
      • (4)  There is clear and convincing evidence that an additional period of rehabilitation would not correct the situation.
    •  h.  The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
      • (1)  The child is three years of age or younger.
      • (2)  The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96.
      • (3)  The child has been removed from the physical custody of the child’s parents for at least six months of the last twelve months, or for the last six consecutive months and any trial period at home has been less than thirty days.
      • (4)  There is clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102 at the present time.
    • l.  The court finds that all of the following have occurred:
      • (1)  The child has been adjudicated a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.96 and custody has been transferred from the child’s parents for placement pursuant to section 232.102.
      • (2)  The parent has a severe, chronic substance abuse problem, and presents a danger to self or others as evidenced by prior acts.
      •  (3)  There is clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to be returned to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home.

 Appeal of Termination of Parental Rights

Silverio appealed this decision, arguing the juvenile court violated his due process rights when it ordered a drug test at the end of the termination trial and then relied on those results, that the State had failed to establish a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination of Silverio’s parental rights was not in the children’s best interest.  The court of appeals reversed because, although they ruled that Silverio had not preserve error on his objection to the drug test, they were “bothered” by the results and the accuracy of the test.  They also felt that termination was not in the children’s best interests.

Iowa Supreme Court Analysis of Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings

The court reviews proceedings to terminate parental rights de novo, meaning they give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of fact, but are not bound by them.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeal’s finding  that the record lacked clear and convincing evidence to warrant termination of Silverio’s parental rights.  The Court listed several points that led to their conclusion:

  • Fingernail Drug Test
    • The general rule that appellate argument must first be raised in the trial court applies to CINA and termination of parental rights cases.  In re Interest of K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003).
    •  Silverio was not ordered to take the fingernail drug test, he stated that he was perfectly willing to take the test and then reported voluntarily to do so.
    •  The test report has no indication of unreliability on its face.  Iowa R. Evid. 5.901(a).
    • The evidence was admitted without objection.
  • Grounds for Termination
    • The Court can base affirmation of the juvenile court’s order on any one ground they find is supported by the record.  In re Interest of D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010).
    • The Court finds that termination is proper under Iowa Code Section 232.116(1)(d).
    • The juvenile court’s finding is based on clear and convincing evidence.
      •  The juvenile court found that Silverio denied his drug use in the face of credible evidence to the contrary.  His drug problem was not resolved and therefore was not in any state to provide a safe and stable home for the children.
  • Best Interests of the Children
    • After statutory grounds for termination are established, the Court must still determine whether termination is in the children’s best interests.  Iowa Code section 232.116(2).
      •  The Court gives “primary consideration” to the child’s safety, long term nurturing and growth of the child, and physical, mental and emotional needs of the child.  Iowa Code section 232.116(2).
      • The children were excelling in foster care and they repeatedly told their care providers they were happy living there.  Truancy problems were no longer an issue, the children were doing well in school  and the foster parents had indicated a desire to adopt them.
      • Although Silverio had taken advantage of DHS services, he was still involved in drug and domestic violence related arrests.  Also, he refused to acknowledge any illegal drug use despite several positive drug tests.

Because of these reasons, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the juvenile court ruling terminating Silverio’s parental rights.

Share

Elena M. Greenberg

Location:  Des Moines, Iowa
Phone:  515-635-5298
Fax:  515-875-4927

Elena majored in Psychology and English at the University of Iowa where she earned her B.A. degree. She graduated with honors from Drake University and received her J.D. in May 2009.

Elena interned at the American Judicature Society and the Iowa Attorney General’s office. She practiced as a student attorney at the Middleton Children’s Rights Clinic and volunteered as a Court Appointed Special Advocate.

Elena worked as an attorney in a private law firm and then as an Assistant Attorney General in the Child Support Recovery Unit in Cedar Rapids before moving back to Des Moines and starting Greenberg Law on March 1, 2011.

Areas of Practice

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Child Custody & Support
  • Criminal Defense
  • Juvenile Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Appellate Practice

Bar Admissions

  • Iowa

Education

  • Drake University Law School, Des Moines, Iowa
    • J.D. – May, 2009
  • University of Iowa
    • B.A.
    • Major: Psychology
    • Major: English

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • American Bar Association, Member
  • Iowa Bar Association, Member
  • Polk County Bar Association, Member
  • Polk County Women Attorneys, Member

Past Employment Positions

  • Child Support Recovery Unit in Cedar Rapids, Former Assistant Attorney General
  • Iowa Attorney General’s Office – Child Abuse Registry and Termination of Parental Rights Appeals Cases, Intern
  • Middleton Children’s Rights Clinic, Student Attorney

Pro Bono Activities

  • Volunteered, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)

 

 

 

Nicole L. Cox

Location:  Des Moines, IA

Phone:  515-635-4209
Fax:  515-864-0335

 

Nicole majored in Political Science, International Relations and minored in History at Wartburg College in Waverly, IA where she received her B.A. degree. She graduated from Drake University and received her J.D. in May 2009.

Throughout her law student career, Nicole interned at Iowa Legal Aid, both on the Hotline for Older Iowans providing free legal advice to Iowans over age 60 as well as on the Pro Se Project providing legal advice to pro se child support modification and pro se divorce litigants.  Nicole also completed internships at the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, in the Probate Court under Judge Ruth Klotz, and practiced as a student attorney in the Middleton Center for Children’s Rights at the Drake University Legal Clinic.

After law school, Nicole worked as a case manager for the Ozark Area Community Action Agency in Springfield, MO.  Nicole has recently moved to Des Moines, IA with her husband and daughter and will take the Iowa Bar Exam in February 2013.

 

Bar Admissions

  • Missouri

Education

  • Wartburg College, Waverly, Iowa
    • B.A. – May 2004
  • Drake University Law School, Des Moines, Iowa
    • J.D. – May, 2009

 

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • American Bar Association, Member
  • Missouri Bar Association, Member
  • Association of Missouri Mediators

 

 

Share

Iowa Family Law Bulletin

The Iowa Family Law Bulletin is brought to you by the offices of Greenberg Law located in Des Moines, Iowa.

Des Moines Family Law Attorney

Elena Greenberg is a Des Moines family law attorney who provides compassionate, aggressive legal representation to clients in the Greater Des Moines area. Through her law firm, Greenberg Law, she maintains a general practice with an emphasis on family law problems.

Criminal Defense Representation

Elena represents clients who have been charged with misdemeanors, serious misdemeanors, aggravated misdemeanors or felonies, including domestic violence, OWI/DUI/DWI, driving while barred/suspended, theft, assault, drug possession (contraband, paraphernalia, prescription drugs), and other charges.

Assistance in a Comfortable Setting

Greenberg Law’s office is a place where you can feel comfortable talking about your situation in a confidential setting. You will not be judged, and will receive honest feedback about your legal options. You will be given realistic expectations regarding the likely outcome of your case so that a good working relationship may be established. Greenberg Law will aggressively protect your rights.

When I need to, I will be a fierce advocate for you in the courtroom or negotiation room to make sure that your interests are represented.

Knowledgeable Polk County Divorce Lawyer and Family Law Attorney

With a focus on family law issues, Elena has the knowledge and skills to provide you with strong representation for your divorce, custody and other family law needs. She is a former assistant attorney general in the Iowa Child Support Recovery Unit with prior internship experience in the Iowa Attorney General’s Office working Child Abuse Registry cases as well as Terminations of Parental Rights Appeals. She has also volunteered as a Court Appointed Special Advocate.

Elena is a member of the American Bar Association, the Iowa Bar Association, the Polk County Bar Association and the Polk County Women Attorneys.

Free Initial Consultations · Reasonable Fees

As part of Greenberg Law’s legal services, Elena wants you to feel comfortable with her billing practices. She will strive to ensure that her fees are fair and reasonable, and she will work with you to make sure that my charges are transparent. If you are seeking an uncontested divorce with no children, ask her about a flat fee.

Greenberg Law is conveniently located in downtown Des Moines, upstairs from Court Avenue Brewery in the Saddlery Building and steps from the Polk County Courthouse.   Upon request, evening and weekend appointments may be available, as well as offsite meetings if you cannot come to the office.  Greenberg Law offers free initial consultations. To schedule an appointment, call 515-635-5298 or contact Greenberg Law online.

 

Share