In the Interest of A.M., Minor Child. Heather Thomas, Subpoenaed Witness
2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 100
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Three children (A.M., 11; S.W. Jr., 5; L.W., 3) were subjects of a CINA petition against their mother C.D. in Polk County, involving alleged methamphetamine use and caretaker issues.
- A guardian ad litem subpoenaed therapist Heather Thomas for testimony and therapy records to inform the April 24 hearing.
- The juvenile court ordered Thomas to testify but did not require production of therapy notes; Thomas and C.D. challenged the subpoena as violating confidentiality.
- Iowa Code section 232.96(5) creates a limited statutory exception to the patient–psychotherapist privilege in CINA adjudicatory hearings.
- Thomas argued that Iowa Code chapter 228 and sections 622.10 and HIPAA protected the information from disclosure; the GAL argued testimony was necessary.
- The Supreme Court treated Thomas’s appeal as a writ of certiorari and held the juvenile court properly ordered testimony, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 232.96(5) override confidentiality protections? | Thomas (and mother) rely on 622.10 and chapter 228 to bar testimony. | GAL seeks testimony under 232.96(5) as an exception to the privilege. | 232.96(5) controls; permits compelled testimony. |
| Do chapter 228 and HIPAA prevent disclosure in a CINA hearing? | Confidential health information is protected by chapter 228 and HIPAA, preventing disclosure. | Section 232.96(5) and catchall 228.6(1) permit disclosure to meet statutory requirements; HIPAA does not supersede Iowa law here. | Iowa law is more stringent than HIPAA; 232.96(5) prevails. |
| Is the 232.96(5) exception compatible with 622.10 and 228.2 in CINA proceedings? | Those provisions protect confidential communications and mental health records. | The specific 232.96(5) exception governs in CINA adjudications. | 232.96(5) prevails; the exception applies. |
| Should the court balance confidentiality against the child’s best interests? | Therapist testimony is essential to determine best interests and safety. | Maintaining confidentiality is critical for effective treatment and won’t be overridden. | Court balancing favors access to evidence to protect children; testimony allowed. |
| Does the outcome require remand or can limits be imposed on disclosure? | Remand may be necessary to handle procedural or confidentiality safeguards. | Court should proceed with testimony, privacy protections can be addressed in remand. | Remand for further proceedings; writ annulled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harder v. Anderson, Arnold, Dickey, Jensen, Gullickson & Sanger, L.L.P., 764 N.W.2d 534 (Iowa 2009) (statutory privilege limits in disclosure)
- State ex rel. Leas v. O’Neal, 303 N.W.2d 414 (Iowa 1981) (physician–patient privilege abrogated in termination)
- In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867 (Iowa 1994) (limits of health-record privileges in CINA contexts)
- Ashenfelter v. Mulligan, 792 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 2010) (privacy considerations for mental-health records; CINA context)
- Kucera v. Baldazo, 745 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2008) (expressio unius and catchall provisions interpretation)