John Doe v. Iowa Department of Human Services
16-0664
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- A 14-year-old girl reported two incidents of sexual contact by John Doe: one outside the U.S. (on a four-wheeler where Doe allegedly touched her and pressed his genitals against her) and one in Iowa (Doe chased her onto a bed, held her down, tried to separate her legs, and asked her to touch his "private part").
- DHS investigated, initially found third-degree sexual abuse, later amended the assessment to confirm sexual abuse (lascivious acts with a child) and placed Doe on the Iowa Child Abuse Registry.
- The child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) based on the sexual-abuse allegations; parties stipulated to the CINA adjudication.
- Doe appealed administratively; an ALJ and DHS review affirmed the registry placement; Doe then sought judicial review in district court, which affirmed the DHS decision.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Doe challenged (1) DHS jurisdiction over the out-of-country incident, (2) whether he was a "person responsible for the care of a child" during the incidents, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence that he committed sexual abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over out-of-country incident | Iowa lacks jurisdiction because the act occurred outside the U.S. | DHS has jurisdiction because statutes require reports to be handled in the child’s county of residence | DHS had jurisdiction; Iowa statutes cover reports based on the child’s residence |
| Caretaker status | Doe was not a "person responsible for the care of a child" during the incidents | Doe assumed responsibility (was supervising/in his home) and thus qualifies as a caretaker | Substantial evidence supports that Doe was acting as caretaker for both incidents |
| Sufficiency of evidence of sexual abuse | Doe denied abuse; evidence insufficient | Child’s forensic interview and CINA adjudication support DHS findings | Court found the child credible; Doe’s denial not credible; substantial evidence supports finding Doe solicited touching (sexual abuse) |
| Registry placement based on CINA | Placement not justified without stronger proof | CINA adjudication may be determinative under statute | Placement affirmed; CINA adjudication supports registry listing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauk v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 617 N.W.2d 909 (Iowa 2000) (agency findings of fact binding if supported by substantial evidence)
- Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2003) (judicial review of jurisdictional questions is for errors of law)