In the Interest of A.J.M., Minor Child. State of Iowa
847 N.W.2d 601
| Iowa | 2014Background
- A.J.M., adjudicated delinquent at 16 for second‑degree sexual abuse involving younger siblings (offenses began at age 14); committed to State Training School for Girls and later discharged.
- Treatment staff and psychologist repeatedly concluded she posed a continuing risk to reoffend and recommended placement on the sex offender registry; treatment progress was poor with concerns about impulse control, lack of remorse, dishonesty, and manipulativeness.
- Juvenile court discharged A.J.M. and waived the statutory sex‑offender registration requirement, citing inadequate treatment resources for girls and the hardship registration would cause on discharge, without expressly finding she was not likely to reoffend.
- State appealed; court of appeals reversed and ordered registration. Supreme Court granted further review.
- Supreme Court held juvenile courts may waive registration only for eligible juveniles when the court finds the juvenile is not likely to reoffend; because the juvenile court did not make that required finding here, the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration under the clarified standard but otherwise affirmed discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court properly waived sex‑offender registration under Iowa Code § 692A.103(3) | State: waiver was improper because A.J.M. remained at risk to reoffend and waiver undermines public protection | A.J.M.: waiver justified because inadequate treatment and registration would compound State's failure and create post‑release hardship | Waiver permissible only if juvenile court finds the eligible juvenile is not likely to reoffend; juvenile court failed to make that finding, so remand required to apply correct standard |
| Proper legal standard for waiver | State: waiver must reflect public‑protection purpose (focus on likelihood to reoffend) | A.J.M.: court may consider treatment availability and collateral consequences | Court: statutory purpose and scheme require waiver only when juvenile is unlikely to reoffend; other factors may inform modification/suspension but not waiver |
| Burden of proof for waiver | State: juvenile bears burden to prove exception | A.J.M.: (argued for waiver) | Court: burden on juvenile to establish entitlement to waiver (consistent with prior precedent) |
| Distinction between waiver and modification/suspension | State: treat waiver and modification separately; modification requires written findings and restrictions | A.J.M.: juvenile court conflated relief types, relying on hardship and treatment failures to justify waiver | Court: waiver and modification are distinct; waiver requires explicit finding of low likelihood to reoffend; other factors belong to modification/suspension analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 1996) (standard for de novo juvenile review)
- In re C.W.R., 518 N.W.2d 780 (Iowa 1994) (review of statutory discretion in juvenile cases)
- In re G.J.A., 547 N.W.2d 3 (Iowa 1996) (statutory interpretation standard)
- In re S.M.M., 558 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1997) (discussing juvenile registry waiver and burden)
- State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 843 N.W.2d 76 (Iowa 2014) (adult registry modification discussion)
- In re Foster, 426 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa 1988) (construction of term "likely")
- In re Estate of Bockwoldt, 814 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 2012) (abuse of discretion when law is misapplied)
- State v. Pickens, 558 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 1997) (describing chapter 692A as remedial)