In the Interest of D.D., Minor Child, 955 N.W.2d 186

Background

DHS founded a report that D.D., a seven-year-old, was sexually abused by her stepfather; mother initially denied the abuse and was found to lack protective capacity.
All five children were removed and adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA); the juvenile court cited detailed forensic interview statements from D.D. and imminent risk of further harm.
After ~13 months of services, the court allowed the children to return to the mother’s custody on the condition the stepfather not live in the home; therapists and DHS provided ongoing services.
The stepfather returned to the family home in November 2019 (continuing to deny abuse and apparently not admitting responsibility in therapy); safety measures (door alarms, prohibition on being alone with children) were implemented.
In February 2020 the juvenile court dismissed the CINA proceeding (children reported feeling safe); D.D.’s incarcerated father appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court found the record sufficiently complete (audio + exhibits) and reversed the dismissal, concluding the purposes of the dispositional order had not been accomplished given ongoing risk factors (mother’s denial, stepfather’s return, D.D.’s instability).

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Record completeness: failure to include transcript of Feb. 11 hearing	Appeal not waived; court file included audio recording and exhibits sufficient for review	Appellant waived issues by not supplying the written transcript	Court: record was adequate (audio + exhibits); no speculation required; proceeded to merits
Was dismissal of the CINA dispositional order proper under §232.103(4) (purposes accomplished)?	Dismissal improper: purposes (protecting D.D. from further sexual abuse) not accomplished because stepfather returned and mother denies abuse	Dismissal proper: substantial therapeutic progress, children report feeling safe, courts should not impose a utopia; reunification goal supports dismissal	Court reversed: purposes not accomplished; continued supervision warranted
Was reintroduction of the alleged abuser into the home consistent with needed safety given mother’s refusal to acknowledge abuse?	Unsafe: mother’s denial and prior conduct (coaching, minimizing) make her unable to protect; stepfather never took responsibility; alarms and supervision insufficient	Reintroduction reasonable: therapists, DHS, GAL, and juvenile court found family therapy and monitoring sufficient	Court: safety measures and therapy insufficient where primary caretakers deny abuse and the abuser hasn’t acknowledged responsibility; removal of case dismissal required
Role of statutory timelines and reunification goal in justifying dismissal	Timelines do not force dismissal when child remains unsafe; reunification is a goal, not mandatory	Statutory limits on supervision and reunification support closure once services provided and family stabilized	Court: timelines don’t compel dismissal if CINA purposes remain unmet; reunification cannot justify exposing child to ongoing risk

Key Cases Cited

In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2001) (standard of de novo review in CINA appeals; give weight to juvenile court findings)
In re H.G., 601 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1999) (best-interests-of-the-child is paramount in CINA proceedings)
In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2005) (appellate courts cannot speculate about missing trial record)
In re R.G., 450 N.W.2d 823 (Iowa 1990) (dismissal of CINA proceeding review and standards)
In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2002) (offender’s denial can render treatment ineffective and affect parental rights)
In re M.D., 921 N.W.2d 229 (Iowa 2018) (procedural protections for incarcerated parents in juvenile proceedings)
In re K.L.C., 372 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 1985) (parental denial of sexual abuse may undermine custody conclusions)