Opinion
No. 1-1018 / 01-0080.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, PHILLIP S. DANDOS, Judge.
Sandra Clinton appeals the district court's ruling on judicial review, which upheld an agency decision to deny expungement of a dependant adult abuse report. AFFIRMED.
Alice Horneber, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary Pippin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Sandra Clinton is the mother, guardian, and conservator of a severely handicapped adult daughter, Colette. The Department of Human Services (the Department) alleged Sandra had committed an intentional act of dependent adult abuse by converting Colette's funds to her own personal use contrary to Iowa Code section 235B.2(5)(a)(1)(c) (1999). A dependent adult abuse report was issued. Sandra sought expungement of the report, which was denied both at the agency level and on judicial review. Sandra appeals. Our task is to review the ruling of the administrative law judge (ALJ) for errors at law. In re E.Z., 585 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1998).
Years after qualifying for and receiving various forms of state and federal aid, Colette received an inheritance from her father in the amount of $52,660. Sandra deposited those funds into her own personal bank account. The money was then used to pay off Sandra's car loan and pay down a construction loan on her new home. Additional facts are found in the ALJ's proposed decision dated June 9, 2000, and we adopt those facts and findings as our own.
The thrust of Sandra's argument is two fold. She claims both that she was never advised as to the proper handling of Colette's inheritance and that she only used the funds for Colette's benefit. Sandra contends she had only the best intentions when using the money to pay for a reliable vehicle to drive when visiting Colette and in having her new home adequately built to provide Colette with handicap accessibility. Although Colette had not lived at home since 1989, Sandra stated she hoped someday her daughter would be able to reside with her again. The ALJ considered whether these claimed good intentions worked to absolve Sandra of her apparent culpability. Both the ALJ and the district court thought not, and we agree. In reaching this decision we emphasize our role is not to reweigh the evidence, but only to assess whether substantial evidence supports the findings actually made. Burns v. Bd. of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993).
In addition to the lack of support for Sandra's contentions, we also note she bore the fiduciary duty evidenced in her oath of office, "to promptly pay over to the person or officer entitled thereto all money which may come into my hands by virtue of my said office. . . ." While Sandra claims both ignorance of and confusion over her responsibilities as conservator, we find substantial evidence in the record to indicate otherwise. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.