In re S.S. ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1384
Filed December 6, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF S.S.,
Minor Child,
B.S., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District
Associate Judge.
A father appeals from the order adjudicating his child a child in need of
assistance. AFFIRMED.
Robb D. Goedicke of CGR & R Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant father.
Jami J. Hagemeier of Williams & Hagemeier, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, guardian ad litem
for minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
S.S., born November 2000, came to the attention of the Iowa Department
of Human Services (DHS) in March 2017, upon allegations the father sexually
abused her. Specifically, the DHS was alerted the father found naked photos of
S.S. on her cell phone and forced her to perform various sex acts. The father
admitted to finding photos of S.S. and to still possessing the photos on his phone.
He denied S.S.’s allegations of sexual abuse.
On April 3, 2017, an order confirming S.S.’s March 24 removal was issued
by the juvenile court. The court placed S.S. in her mother’s care with services from
the DHS.1 In April 2017, the caseworker conducted interviews with the father, the
father’s family, and staff from S.S.’s school. S.S.’s brother stated S.S. took photos
of herself and stole things. The school staff member stated S.S. is honest about
her behavior, whether good or bad, and the father kept S.S. isolated. The father
refused to meet face-to-face with the DHS worker but during a phone interview,
the father stated he never touched S.S. and knew S.S. was sexually active.
Following a contested adjudicatory hearing, on July 8, the juvenile court
adjudicated S.S. in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and
(d) (2017). The dispositional order of August 16 ordered “the temporary legal
custody of the child remains with her mother, under the supervision of the [DHS].”
The father appeals.
II. Standard of Review
1
S.S.’s mother and the father were never married. The father is married to another
woman. S.S.’s relationship with her stepmother is not good.
3
We review a juvenile court’s adjudication of a child as a child in need of
assistance de novo. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). Though we give
weight to the juvenile court’s findings of fact, we are not bound by them. Id. “Our
primary concern is the child[ ]’s best interests.” Id.III. Analysis
On appeal, the father claims the State failed to prove the grounds for
adjudication by clear and convincing evidence. He claims the court erred in finding
he had sexually abused S.S. and erred in finding S.S. was credible.
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) provides:
6. “Child in need of assistance” means an unmarried child:
....
c. Who has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful
effects as a result of any of the following:
....
(2) The failure of the child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or
other member of the household in which the child resides to exercise
a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.
Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) defines a “child in need of assistance” as a
child “[w]ho has been, or is imminently likely to be, sexually abused by the child’s
parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household in which the child
resides.”
Based on the record, we agree with the juvenile court the State proved by
clear and convincing evidence S.S. is in need of assistance. Despite the father’s
contentions the abuse did not occur, the child protective assessment worker
determined S.S.’s allegations to be founded. Furthermore, the juvenile court
considered the father’s invocation of the right to remain silent and inferred the
answers would be “adverse” to him. In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 2002)
4
(“[A] person’s exercise of a constitutional right may indeed have consequences.”).
It also questioned why the father would continue to possess nude photos of S.S.
on his cell phone.
The father’s primary assertion is that S.S. is not credible; however, in the
adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court was presented with testimony from the
DHS worker, S.S.’s therapist, and school staff, who all indicated S.S. appeared
open and honest with them. In addition, the juvenile court made its own credibility
findings, noting S.S. provided “many, specific, consistent details regarding a
prolonged extortion and revolting, incestuous, sexual abuse.” We defer to the
juvenile court’s credibility determinations. See In re W.G., 349 N.W.2d 487, 491-
92 (Iowa 1984).
The juvenile court specifically found S.S. had been and is imminently likely
to be sexually abused by the father, whom she resided with, and S.S. suffered or
is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the failure of the father
to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising S.S. We find the record
contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the adjudication of S.S.
pursuant to section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (d).
IV. Conclusion
Because we agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion the State proved the
statutory grounds for adjudicating S.S. as a child in need of assistance, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.