In the Interest of L.F., Minor Child, S.F., Mother
17-0818
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- L.F., born June 2015, came to DHS attention in Aug. 2016 after repeated ER visits (at least 19 times between June 27 and Aug. 4, 2016) for alleged vomiting and food allergies reported by mother.
- Multiple physicians found no remarkable symptoms, questioned mother’s reports, and suspected the mother fed an inappropriate diet; allergy testing showed no food allergies.
- Mother insisted on a donated breast-milk–only diet despite medical advice to use a normal diet; nurses reported concerning physical interactions (forcible diaper changes, shaking crib, striking child).
- Child-abuse specialists and DHS expressed concern for medical child abuse / fabrication by proxy; DHS found a founded assessment for denial of critical care.
- State filed petition (Aug. 24) to adjudicate L.F. a child in need of assistance; juvenile court adjudicated under Iowa Code §232.2(6)(b) and (6)(c)(2) and ordered protective supervision while the child remained with parents.
- Mother appealed only the adjudication (father supported it); constitutional evidentiary arguments were raised on appeal but not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved child in need of assistance under §232.2(6)(b) (imminent abuse/neglect) | Mother: State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that L.F. suffered or was imminently likely to suffer abuse or neglect. | State: Medical history, founded DHS assessment, and professionals’ concerns show imminent risk of abuse/neglect. | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported adjudication under §232.2(6)(b). |
| Whether State proved child in need of assistance under §232.2(6)(c)(2) (harm from failure to supervise) | Mother: Evidence insufficient to show harmful effects or imminent harm from lack of reasonable supervision. | State: Mother’s fabrication/exaggeration of illness, refusal to follow medical advice, and harmful caregiving show imminent risk of physical/mental harm. | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported adjudication under §232.2(6)(c)(2). |
| Whether voluntar y services could resolve safety concerns | Mother: Implied that less intrusive measures should suffice. | State: Voluntary services insufficient given the founded assessment and ongoing safety risk. | Court: Juvenile court correctly found voluntary services inadequate. |
| Admissibility / constitutional challenge to exhibits | Mother: Raised constitutional objections to exhibits on appeal. | State: Exhibits properly admitted at adjudication; issue not preserved. | Court: Did not address on merits; appeal argument not preserved because not raised below (Meier v. Senecaut cited). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2014) (standard for de novo review in CINA adjudication and definition of harmful effects)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues must be raised and decided below to be reviewed on appeal)