In the Interest of A.S. and N.S., Minor Children
22-0260
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2022Background
- Nick (father) was found to have sexually abused three children (K.S., A.S., B.S.); DHS issued an emergency removal and placed all four children in foster care; assessments were founded for sexual abuse and denial of critical care.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the children CINA and ordered reunification services for both parents, including mental-health/substance evaluations, therapy for parents and affected children, family-centered services (FCS), and supervised visitation with a phased expansion plan.
- Visitation initially progressed (community to in-home supervised visits and added weekend visits), but when Nick joined in-home supervised visits children’s behaviors regressed and a second assessment found second-degree sexual abuse of B.S.
- The juvenile court found parents had made some progress but concluded Nick denied abuse and refused a psychosexual evaluation, and Anna refused to acknowledge the court’s sexual-abuse finding against Nick. The court kept visits supervised and denied immediate return.
- The court expressly found DHS had made reasonable efforts to prevent out-of-home placement (evaluations, therapy, FCS, solution-focused meetings, supervised visits) but that returning the children or reducing supervision would be contrary to their welfare until sexual-abuse and supervision issues were addressed.
- Anna appealed, arguing DHS failed to increase frequency/duration and decrease supervision of her visits despite her compliance with services and her claim that she was unaware of or did not acquiesce to Nick’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family | Anna: DHS failed to expand visits and reduce supervision despite her compliance, so reasonable efforts were lacking | DHS: Provided reasonable services tailored to safety risks (evaluations, therapy, FCS, supervised phased visits); child safety paramount | Court affirmed reasonable-efforts finding — DHS provided services reasonable under circumstances and child safety controls outcome |
| Whether visitation frequency/duration and supervision should be increased for Anna | Anna: Because she complied with services, visits should be increased/de-supervised | DHS/Court: Increased or less supervised visits would risk children given founded sexual-abuse findings, parental denial, and child regression when father participated | Court denied expansion; maintained supervised visits until sexual-abuse issues and protective capacity are addressed |
| Whether Anna’s failure to acknowledge risk affects children’s best interests | Anna: She has participated in services and is compliant; not culpable for Nick’s acts | DHS/Court: A parent who does not acknowledge the abuse cannot be relied on to protect children; lack of protective capacity is a safety risk | Court held Anna’s refusal/inability to address abuse undermines safety and supports continued restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 2017) (de novo review; best interests inquiry looks to parent’s past performance)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (child-protection statutes permit intervention before harm occurs)
- In re S.J., 620 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (reasonable-efforts obligation requires services reasonable under the circumstances)
- In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2021) (parental denial of abuse can defeat protective capacity and justify restrictions)
- In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (if services fail to remove the risk prompting limited visitation, increasing visitation likely not in child’s best interests)