Opinion
No. 3-648 / 02-1831
Filed October 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forDickinson County, David C. Larson, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The State appeals a dispositional order which returned J.C. to his parents' home. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Rosalise Olson, County Attorney, for appellant State.
Stephanie Brown and John Brown of Berkland Brown, Emmetsburg, for appellee father.
Thomas Magee, Emmetsburg, for appellee mother.
Shannon Sandy of Sandy Law Firm, P.C., Spirit Lake, for minor child.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Bruce and Shari are the parents of Cara, born in 1987; Kristen, born in 1989; and Jacob, born in 1992. In March 2002 Cara and Kristen alleged that Bruce had sexually abused them by fondling their breasts. Shari was not supportive of the girls and continues to insist the girls are lying. The children were removed from the home and placed in the care of a maternal aunt. The children were subsequently adjudicated to be children in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(f) (Supp. 2001) (parent fails to provide needed treatment for emotional damage).
The State appeals from a dispositional order filed on November 15, 2002, continuing Cara and Kristen's placement, but ordering Jacob's return to parental custody. The juvenile court ruled:
[C]redible testimony was presented by Dr. Linda Grohe, Dr. Dan Rogers and Tom Loebach that it would be in the best interests of Jacob to be returned to his parents' custody. . . . Jacob . . . gave very candid testimony that he is torn between wanting to return to his parents and wanting to be with his sisters, with it being his first preference to return home to his parents and have maximum contact with his sisters.
The dispositional order concerning Jacob has been stayed by the supreme court pending resolution of this appeal.
Our scope of review in juvenile court proceedings is de novo. See In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). Our paramount concern is the best interests of the children. In re D.S., 437 N.W.2d 587, 588 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989).
We are convinced Jacob cannot be safely returned to parental custody. There is abundant evidence of Bruce's deviant sexual behavior and sexual misconduct including sexual abuse of his daughters and two sisters-in-law, as well as admitted acts of bestiality. There is also evidence that Shari has at a minimum acquiesced in Bruce's bizarre behavior by engaging in a sex act with Bruce's brother while Bruce watched. Shari failed to protect Cara and Kristen from Bruce and continues to dispute their claims of sexual abuse by Bruce.
Bruce and Shari also have mental health problems. They have both been diagnosed with depression and have attempted suicide in the past. Shari also has a dependent personality disorder. Bruce has had problems with alcoholism and abuse of prescription drugs. There have also been incidents of domestic abuse. These are additional concerns that need to be addressed before any of the children can safely be returned to parental custody. At the time the dispositional order was entered, the parents had only begun to address these problems by attending counseling.
In finding that Jacob could be returned home, the juvenile court relied on the testimony of Dr. Dan Rogers, Dr. Linda Grohe, and Tom Loebach. We first note that Dr. Rogers's report stated, "It would be safe and beneficial for Jacob to return home quickly." This statement must be read in conjunction with other statements found in Dr. Rogers's report. For example:
Is Bruce able to provide safe parenting for the children and does he need psychotherapy or counseling? Bruce is suffering from a long-standing depressive disorder that has resulted in his developing a number of personality and emotional problems. Without treatment and relief, he is not able to provide parenting for his children with which the children and community can feel confidently safe; however, with treatment and monitored compliance on his part, it is likely that he can.
Dr. Rogers's report affirms our belief that Bruce needs treatment before Jacob can be safely returned to parental custody. We also note that Dr. Rogers made no findings concerning Cara's and Kristen's sexual abuse, and he therefore has not addressed the risk of Jacob's sexual abuse by Shari or Bruce. We also decline to follow similar recommendations for Jacob's return to parental custody made by other mental health professionals for the same reasons. In contrast to the testimony of Dr. Rogers, Dr. Grohe, and Loebach, all of the social workers involved in the case recommended that Jacob not be returned to the home at the present time.
The Department's social workers testified that Jacob cannot be safely returned to the home because of the risks presented by Bruce and Shari's mental illness, past sexual abuse, domestic violence, and failure to address these issues. Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the record supports the Department's recommendation. The supreme court has stated:
Although every CINA adjudication addresses a unique situation, facts in prior cases suggest that perpetrators of sexual abuse often abuse multiple children in the family without regard to the sex of the child. See, e.g., State v. Farnum, 397 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Iowa 1986) (defendant convicted of sexually abusing boy and girl living in home along with neighbor girl). Prior decisions likewise reflect the common sense notion that, ordinarily, all siblings are at risk when one child has been sexually abused. See, e.g., In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 548 (Iowa 1993) (father allegedly sexually abused oldest daughter and all six children adjudicated CINA); In re A.B., 492 N.W.2d 446, 447 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992) (court ordered CINA petition filed on all children after allegations of sexual and physical abuse of one child).
We accordingly reverse the trial court's dispositional order providing for Jacob's return to parental custody and remand for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion.