State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Warren County, 2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 30

The State filed a March 2011 delinquency petition alleging J.W.R. committed incest and third-degree sexual abuse; adjudication was sought, but the court entered a consent decree.
J.W.R. was placed under temporary legal custody of Juvenile Court Services with DHS as payment agent for placement in a residential treatment/group foster care setting.
Experts diagnosed J.W.R. with Asperger’s and recommended community-based treatment or family/foster placement rather than a residential sex-offender facility.
The State objected to the consent decree, arguing it could not authorize out-of-home placement or funding under §232.46; the court nonetheless ordered placement in a group foster care facility.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari, holding that the consent decree could not authorize a change of custody for residential placement; the supreme court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §232.46 permits a consent decree changing custody for residential treatment	J.W.R. contends terms may include placement outside home via consent decree.	State argues consent decree terms do not authorize out-of-home custody change or residential placement.	No; terms and conditions do not include custody change for residential placement.
Whether the clause 'terms and conditions' is ambiguous and could include residential treatment	J.W.R. argues ambiguity allows broad placement terms for child’s welfare.	State contends terms are limited to in-home or supervision-type provisions.	Ambiguity exists but does not authorize a custody change to residential placement under the decree.
Whether funding for residential placement can be achieved under the consent decree	Consent decree could include funding for out-of-home treatment.	Funding rules and DHS payment mechanisms do not support such a decree; statute lacks language authorizing it.	Funding for residential group foster care under a consent decree is not authorized by statute.
Whether the decision raises due process concerns about parental participation	Parents were informed but not heard against a custody change.	Parents were informed; the decree concerns placement, not custody, and due process concerns are limited.	Due process concerns do not authorize custody change under the statute; the statute should be interpreted to avoid such issues.

In re C.D.P., 315 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 1982) (consent decree funding/placement issues; custody transfer improper where DHS not party)
In re Rousselow, 341 N.W.2d 760 (Iowa 1983) (consent decree as probationary continuation; placement not resolved there)
In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2010) (juvenile proceedings liberal construction; best interests framework)
State v. Rogers, 251 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1977) (deferred judgments and probation; residential treatment permissible in that context)
Mall Real Estate, L.L.C. v. City of Hamburg, 818 N.W.2d 190 (Iowa 2012) (statutory interpretation; context matters; avoid redundancy)