In re Interest of L.H.

Decision Date17 November 2017
Docket NumberNo. 17-0920,17-0920
Citation904 N.W.2d 145
Parties IN the INTEREST OF L.H., Minor Child, R.H., Father, Appellant
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Mark J. Neary of Neary Law Office, Muscatine, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick (until withdrawal) and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Sara Strain Linder of Bray & Klockau, P.L.C., Iowa City, guardian ad litem, for minor child.

ZAGER, Justice.

This further review requires us to determine whether a father's physical abuse against other family members, and his history of domestic violence, without physical abuse against the child, supports an adjudication of the child as one in need of assistance. The juvenile court determined that the parent is "imminently likely to abuse or neglect the child" and that the child "is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects" due to a "failure of the child's parent ... to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child." See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2) (2016). The court of appeals reversed the juvenile court adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance, finding the father's physical abuse towards other family members did not establish that the child was at risk of imminent harm. We granted the State and guardian ad litem's application for further review. In our de novo review, we conclude the record supports the juvenile court adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance. We therefore vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Danielle is the mother of ten-year-old A.D., four-year-old G.G., and two-year-old L.H. Each child has a different father, but Danielle is currently involved with the father of L.H., Ryan. Danielle and Ryan have been in a relationship for approximately three years and have resided together intermittently during this time. In June 2016, the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved following an alleged incident of physical abuse in which Ryan grabbed A.D. by the neck and slammed him up against a wall after Ryan became upset with A.D. for locking the bathroom door. Danielle did not observe the assault. However, she could hear yelling and then observed A.D. on the floor crying and holding his head. Following the incident, Danielle called 911 and took A.D. to the hospital. The treating physician diagnosed A.D. with a subdural hematoma. L.H. did not witness this event.

At the time of the alleged incident, Danielle and the children resided with her father in Atalissa during the week. However, Danielle and the children spent most weekends with Ryan at his residence in Davenport. At no time during this period were Danielle and Ryan separated. Following this incident, DHS took follow-up measures to investigate the abuse allegation and the safety of all of Danielle's children. As part of these efforts, DHS spoke with Danielle at length about her relationship with Ryan. Danielle reported that Ryan had grabbed A.D. by the neck once before and had done things that "scare" them in the past. She noted that Ryan has anger issues that she has spoken to him about and that Ryan agreed he needed help to address his anger issues. However, Ryan never took any action to resolve those anger issues. After its investigation, DHS determined the incident was a founded case of child abuse with Ryan as the perpetrator.

Danielle also reported that Ryan has a history of domestic violence. On May 7, 2015, Danielle had to go to the hospital after Ryan kicked her in the head. Additionally, during a family safety, risk, and permanency visit with Danielle in December 2016, a social worker observed "extreme bruising on [Danielle's] face," including broken blood vessels in her right eye, two black eyes, and bruises along her forehead and cheeks. Danielle told the social worker that her black eyes were the result of a snowball and that her facial bruising occurred when she tripped over a toy and hit a door. The social worker also noticed a bump on L.H.'s head, which Danielle said occurred when L.H. fell off a chair. The social worker noted "severe concerns for the presence of domestic violence in the home." Danielle later acknowledged at the adjudicatory hearing for L.H. that she reported domestic violence in her relationship with Ryan in both 2015 and 2016.

In addition to Ryan's history of domestic violence with Danielle, the DHS social history report on L.H. shows Ryan also has a history of domestic violence in previous relationships with other women. Ryan has been the subject of two protective orders with two former partners. In 2007, he was named the perpetrator of abuse of one of his other children when he struck the child's mother hard enough that she fell while holding the child. Specifically, that mother reported Ryan had been drinking and driving with the child in the car. When they returned home, the mother went into the bathroom and Ryan kicked in the door to assault the mother. The mother reported that Ryan assaulted her three other times.

Throughout the DHS investigation into the safety of L.H., Ryan was noncooperative. The family's assigned service provider testified that she made multiple attempts to contact Ryan, but she was unable to reach him. Ryan refused to even talk with DHS and did not participate in any discussions regarding a safety plan for L.H. Ryan refused to cooperate with the preparation of the social history for L.H., even after being ordered by the court to appear and answer questions. Ryan refused to answer any questions related to the social history prepared for L.H. when given the opportunity in court. Ryan was not part of any safety plan implemented by DHS for the protection of L.H., and he did not participate in any services offered by DHS.

As the DHS investigation progressed, Danielle also became less cooperative. She refused to allow DHS to meet alone with the children unless the meetings were court-ordered. She also began to qualify and modify her earlier statements about the incident between A.D. and Ryan. Danielle testified that she thought perhaps A.D. had just "fallen backwards into the door." The guardian ad litem noted Danielle's lack of cooperation appeared influenced by Ryan. For example, within thirty minutes of the child protective worker's contact with Ryan regarding the incident with A.D., Danielle called the child protective worker to soften her previous statements about Ryan.

On January 13, 2017, the juvenile court held a contested adjudicatory hearing in the interest of L.H. and Danielle's other children. A DHS worker testified that the mother and father were uncooperative with DHS. Further testimony revealed that DHS had been unable to meet with Ryan since the June 2016 incident because he would not respond to phone calls or letters from DHS. Additionally, a DHS worker testified Ryan refused to submit social history to DHS, refused to answer any questions DHS asked at the hearing, and refused to cooperate with paternity testing. Danielle testified that A.D. might have "exaggerated" the June incident. The assistant county attorney told the juvenile court that she was unsure she could "assure the safety of these children based on the [existing] adjudication ... and the complete lack of cooperation with services" from Ryan and Danielle. On February 23, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that Ryan assaulted A.D. in June 2016. The court issued an order adjudicating L.H. and his half-siblings as children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2), noting,

It is clear the mother is aware [Ryan] has anger issues that are not addressed, that have resulted in assault to one of her children, and that she will continue a relationship with [Ryan] which will result in them living in the same household on a full time or intermittent basis exposing the children to the imminent likelihood of abuse and a failure to provide appropriate supervision.

The juvenile court left L.H. and his half-siblings in Danielle's care.

On April 20, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Following the hearing, the juvenile court issued an order confirming L.H. is a child in need of assistance, stating, "It is clear that [L.H.'s parents] will continue to have a relationship and live together. All of the children will be supervised by Ryan.... Ryan ... has unaddressed anger issues that present a danger to the children if not addressed." The juvenile court left the children in Danielle's custody, subject to DHS supervision. It also ordered Ryan to undergo paternity testing, which later confirmed that Ryan is the biological father of L.H. The juvenile court further ordered Ryan to undergo a mental health evaluation and to participate in parenting classes, domestic violence education, and anger management counseling. The juvenile court similarly ordered Danielle to participate in the same parenting classes and domestic violence education, and it authorized DHS to meet with the children alone one time each month.

Ryan appealed the juvenile court adjudication of L.H. as CINA on the grounds that the State failed to prove that Ryan was "imminently likely to abuse or neglect the child" under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), or that L.H. was at a risk of harm due to his lack of parental supervision under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2).1 On July 19, the court of appeals reversed the juvenile court adjudication of L.H., stating,

The State and L.H.'s guardian ad litem argue L.H. is [at] risk of imminent harm based on the father's pattern of abusive behavior and unaddressed anger issues. Their argument relies on the assumption the mother will place L.H. under the supervision of the father, whose anger issues make abuse imminently likely. There is no evidence L.H. has been assaulted and no evidence the child witnessed a domestic abuse assault between the mother and father.
....
The father has
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • In re Interest of M.D.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 30 Noviembre 2018
    ...deny her role in the abuse, claiming the children’s emotional trauma is the result of her inability to be with them. See In re L.H. , 904 N.W.2d 145, 153 (Iowa 2017) ("An important aspect of a parent’s care for his or her child is to address his or her role in the abuse of the child.").More......
  • In re Interest of H.W.
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 17 Febrero 2021
    ...past performance because it may indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.’ " In re L.H. , 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re J.E. , 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006) ). "CINA determinations must be based upon cle......
  • In re Interest of N.C.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 2020
    ...). The court of appeals decision is final as to the other grounds. We review the juvenile court's decisions de novo. See In re L.H. , 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (quoting In re J.S. , 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014) ). We give weight to the juvenile court's factual findings, especially wh......
  • In re Interest of C.W.
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 3 Marzo 2021
    ...means there are "no serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness [of] conclusions of law drawn from the evidence." In re L.H. , 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The paramount concern in termination proceedings is the best interests of the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT