Doe v. Iowa Dep't Of Human Serv.

• Citation: 786 N.W.2d 853
• Decision Date: 05 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-0716.,09-0716.
• Parties: Jane DOE, Appellant,v.IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

786 N.W.2d 853

Jane DOE, Appellant,v.IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 09-0716.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 9, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 2010.

Elizabeth A. Norris, Iowa City, Jessica J. Taylor and Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Paul F. Kraus, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Tina L.B. Fisher, Des Moines, for amici curiae Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women Family, The Family Violence Prevention Fund, and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Thomas W. Foley of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for amicus curiae Children & Families of Iowa.

WIGGINS, Justice.

In this appeal, Jane Doe ¹ seeks a ruling reversing the judgment of the district court affirming the Iowa Department of Human Services' (DHS) final decision finding Doe had committed child abuse and placing her name on the central child abuse registry.² Specifically, the district court affirmed DHS's final decision finding Doe had committed child abuse by denying her child critical care due to Doe's failure to provide for the proper supervision of her child in 2001 and 2002, when she repeatedly exposed her child to the child's father, the perpetrator of numerous incidents of domestic abuse against Doe.

On appeal, Doe raises three issues as to why her name should not be on the child abuse registry. First, she argues substantial evidence does not support the finding that she committed child abuse. Next, Doe contends the legislature did not authorize DHS to place her name on the registry for failing to provide for the proper supervision of her child. Finally, she asserts DHS's practice of holding domestic violence victims responsible for the actions of their perpetrators is against public policy. Because we agree with Doe's contention that the legislature did not authorize DHS to place Doe's name on the registry for failing to provide for the proper supervision of her child, we do not consider Doe's other arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand the case to the agency to remove Doe's name from the child abuse registry.

I. Statutory Framework.

The outcome of this appeal depends on our interpretation of various statutes and rules dealing with child abuse and the child abuse registry. The first statute we need to interpret is chapter 232's definition of “child abuse.” This statute defines “child abuse,” in part, as:

The failure on the part of a person responsible for the care of a child to provide for the adequate food, shelter, clothing or other care necessary for the child's health and welfare when financially able to do so or when offered financial or other reasonable means to do so.

Iowa Code § 232.68(2)( d ) (2001) ³ (emphasis added).

DHS refers to this subsection of the definition of “child abuse” in shorthand by using the term “denial of critical care.” See Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-175.21 (2001) (defining “denial of critical care”). In Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-175.21, DHS interprets the meaning of the “denial of critical care” definition of “child abuse” by enumerating eight circumstances that constitute a “denial of critical care.” Id. The rule states in relevant part:

“ Denial of critical care ” is the failure on the part of a person responsible for the care of a child to provide for the adequate food, shelter, clothing or other care necessary for the child's health and welfare when financially able to do so, or when offered financial or other reasonable means to do so, and shall mean any of the following:

1. Failure to provide adequate food and nutrition to the extent that there is danger of the child suffering injury or death.

2. Failure to provide adequate shelter to the extent that there is danger of the child suffering injury or death.

3. Failure to provide adequate clothing to the extent that there is danger of the child suffering injury or death.

4. Failure to provide adequate health care to the extent that there is danger of the child suffering injury or death. A parent or guardian legitimately practicing religious beliefs who does not provide specified medical treatment for a child for that reason alone shall not be considered abusing the child and shall not be placed on the child abuse registry. However, a court may order that medical service be provided where the child's health requires it.

5. Failure to provide the mental health care necessary to adequately treat an observable and substantial impairment in the child's ability to function.

6. Gross failure to meet the emotional needs of the child necessary for normal development.

7. Failure to provide for the proper supervision of the child to the extent that there is danger of the child suffering injury or death, and which a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar facts and circumstances.

8. Failure to respond to the infant's life-threatening conditions (also known as withholding medically indicated treatment) by providing treatment (including appropriate nutrition, hydration and medication) which in the treating physician's reasonable medical judgment will be most likely to be effective in ameliorating or correcting all conditions, except that the term does not include the failure to provide treatment (other than appropriate nutrition, hydration, or medication) to an infant when, in the treating physician's reasonable medical judgment any of the following circumstances apply: the infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose; the provision of the treatment would merely prolong dying, not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant's life-threatening conditions, or otherwise be futile in terms of the survival of the infant; the provision of the treatment would be virtually futile in terms of the survival of the infant and the treatment itself under the circumstances would be inhumane.

Id. (emphasis added). For the purposes of this opinion, we will assume, without deciding, substantial evidence supports DHS's finding that Doe committed child abuse under Iowa Code section 232.68(2)( d ) for her failure to provide for the proper supervision of her child as defined in rule 441-175.21.

We must also consider the statute that governs placement on the child abuse registry providing:

2. If the alleged child abuse meets the definition of child abuse under section 232.68, subsection 2, paragraph “ a ” or “ d”, and the department determines the injury or risk of harm to the child was minor and isolated and is unlikely to reoccur, the names of the child and the alleged perpetrator of the child abuse and any other child abuse information shall not be placed in the central registry as a case of founded child abuse.

3. Except as otherwise provided in section 232.68, subsection 2, paragraph “ d”, regarding parents legitimately practicing religious beliefs, the names of the child and the alleged perpetrator and the report data and disposition data shall be placed in the central registry as a case of founded child abuse under any of the following circumstances:

....

f. The department determines the acts or omissions of the alleged perpetrator meet the definition of child abuse under section 232.68, subsection 2, paragraph “ d”, involving failure to provide care necessary for the child's health and welfare, and any injury to the child or risk to the child's health and welfare was not minor or was not isolated or is likely to reoccur, in any of the following ways:

(1) Failure to provide adequate food and nutrition.

(2) Failure to provide adequate shelter.

(3) Failure to provide adequate health care.

(4) Failure to provide adequate mental health care.

(5) Gross failure to meet emotional needs.

(6) Failure to respond to an infant's life-threatening condition.

Iowa Code § 232.71D(2), (3)( f ).

Finally, we must consider DHS's rule interpreting the meaning of section 232.71D stating:

Reports of child abuse where abuse has been confirmed shall be placed on the central abuse registry as founded child abuse for ten years under any of the circumstances specified by Iowa Code Supplement subsection 232.71D(3). Reports of denial of critical care by failure to provide adequate clothing or failure to provide adequate supervision and physical abuse where abuse has been confirmed and determined to be minor, isolated, and unlikely to reoccur shall not be placed in the central abuse registry as a case of founded child abuse as specified by Iowa Code Supplement subsections 232.71D(2) and (3). The confirmed abuse shall be placed on the registry unless all three conditions are met. Minor abuse shall be placed on the registry if there is a prior confirmed abuse.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-175.39 (emphasis added).

II. Scope of Review.

Rule 441-175.39 is DHS's interpretation of Iowa Code section 232.71D. DHS's interpretation requires that it must place all confirmed child abusers who fail to provide adequate supervision of their children on the registry unless the abuse is determined to be minor, isolated, and unlikely to reoccur. Id. This interpretation appears to conflict with Iowa Code section 232.71D(3)( f ). Section 232.71D(3)( f ) does not list failure to provide for the proper supervision of the child as a ground to include a confirmed child abuser on the registry. See Iowa Code § 232.71D(3)( f ) (listing six grounds for placement on the registry).

To determine the scope of review, we must first determine whether the legislature, by a provision of law, clearly vested DHS with the authority to interpret Iowa Code section 232.71D Id. § 17A.19(10)( l ). If the legislature has clearly vested DHS with the authority to interpret the statute, we can only reverse if DHS's interpretation is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. Id. On the other hand, if the legislature did not clearly vest DHS with the authority to interpret the statute, our...