In the Interest of D.B., T.B., A.M., and A.T., Minor Children, State of Iowa, Jami Hagemeier, Guardian Ad Litem
17-0740
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Parents Alicia and Christopher have five children; M.B. (behaviorally challenging) previously found to be a "targeted" child in earlier proceedings and was removed in 2016; A.M. was living with his father.
- In Jan 2017 DHS removed M.B., A.T., T.B., and D.B. after reports that Alicia hit M.B.; allegations included physical punishments (spatula, forced exercise, hot sauce) and verbal abuse directed at M.B.
- Therapists and DHS workers testified about concerns regarding family dynamics, M.B.'s behavioral and cognitive limitations, and the risk that another child could become a new target if M.B. remained out of the home.
- Parents admitted to using physical discipline (father admitted striking children; both said they would continue physical discipline if appropriate) but denied ongoing abusive conduct; juvenile court found parents' testimony credible and discounted the "targeted child" theory and M.B.'s allegations.
- Juvenile court ordered return of A.T. and T.B. (with a no-physical-discipline proviso) and dismissed CINA petitions for A.T., T.B., D.B., and A.M.; State and GAL appealed dismissal for A.T., T.B., and D.B.; appellate court affirmed dismissal re: A.M. but reversed and remanded for adjudication of A.T., T.B., and D.B. as CINA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.T., T.B., and D.B. are CINA under §232.2(6)(b) (physical abuse or imminent likelihood) | Prior abuse of M.B. and parents' admitted physical discipline show imminent risk to siblings once M.B. is removed | Parents deny ongoing abuse; juvenile court credibility findings support dismissal; no expert proving "targeting" risk | Reversed: court found clear and convincing evidence to adjudicate A.T., T.B., D.B. CINA under (b) (imminent risk) |
| Whether A.T., T.B., and D.B. are CINA under §232.2(6)(c)(2) (harmful effects from lack of supervision) | Household environment and pervasive mistreatment of M.B. create foreseeable harmful effects for siblings if returned | Lack of expert proof; many witnesses (therapist, neighbors, physician) observed no abuse; juvenile court found insufficient proof | Reversed: court held children are imminently likely to suffer harmful effects due to inadequate supervision and environment, supporting CINA under (c)(2) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for "targeted child" theory relied upon by State | Circumstantial and clinical literature support risk that another child will be targeted after removal of original victim | State produced no expert to establish that M.B. was a targeted child or that siblings face increased risk | Majority: accepted broader reasoning (family environment and admissions) despite no expert; found clear and convincing overall evidence. Dissent: would require stronger expert-supported proof and defer to juvenile court credibility findings |
| Whether A.M. should be adjudicated CINA | State sought adjudication for all children originally removed | A.M. was living with father, separated from home, no evidence of risk | Affirmed: A.M. not CINA (remained with father; no evidence of risk) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2001) (standard for de novo review in CINA proceedings)
- In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 2002) (definition of clear and convincing and best-interests focus in CINA cases)
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (definition of physical abuse/neglect under chapter 232)
- In re W.G., 349 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 1984) (deference to juvenile court factual findings, especially credibility)
- In re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (clarification of clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (characterization of the demanding nature of the clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867 (Iowa 1994) (credibility determinations reserved to trial court)