Opinion
No. 1-657 / 00-1927.
Filed January 9, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, WILLIAM S. OWENS, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The stepfather of minor child D.E. appeals a juvenile court ruling adjudicating the child as being in need of assistance on the ground of sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Thomas M. Walter of Johnson, Hester, Walter Breckenridge, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Rick L. Lynch, County Attorney, for Appellee.
John R. Silko, Bloomfield, guardian ad litem for minor child.
John B. Martin, Bloomfield, for mother L.C.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
Jody, the stepfather appeals the adjudication of Danielle as a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) (1999) (child was or is likely to be sexually abused). He argues the State failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence he sexually abused Danielle. He contends the CINA adjudication should be based on Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(k) (parents for good cause desire to be relieved of the child's care and custody). Jody seeks Danielle's continued placement with her maternal aunt. We affirm.
I. Background facts and proceedings.
Danielle is the daughter of Lisa and Richard, who later divorced. When Danielle was about six years old, her mother married Jody. Lisa and Jody have two children who are not involved in this appeal.
In late March 1999 Danielle reported to her school that Jody was abusing her sexually. She said the improper sexual contact had occurred over a two to three year period, but had recently increased in frequency and severity. Jody was ordered to leave the family residence pending a hearing on the allegations. The Department of Human Services filed a petition to have all three children adjudicated to be in need of assistance.
After a series of hearings scattered throughout the remainder of 1999 and early 2000, the court adjudicated Danielle to be in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and 232.2(6)(d) by order dated June 23, 2000. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence the two younger children were in need of assistance and dismissed the petition to the extent it concerned them. The court found, in part:
Danielle has consistently maintained that [Jody] exposed her to sexually oriented materials, discussed sexual matters with her, and touched her in a sexual way. While the focus of [Jody's] efforts in this case have been to paint Danielle as a sexually crazed adolescent who is motivated by revenge and hatred toward [him], it is the court's belief that the most credible evidence presented supports Danielle's claims.
The court placed Danielle with her maternal aunt and her husband, ordered DHS to provide services to the family, and ordered visitation between Danielle, her siblings, and her biological parents.
After a dispositional hearing in late October 2000, the court confirmed the CINA adjudication, placed Danielle in the legal custody and guardianship of her maternal aunt and her husband, adopted the case permanency plan as modified, and continued the no contact order between Jody and Danielle. Jody appeals.
II. Claims on appeal.
Jody claims the court erred in finding Danielle was in need of assistance because of sexual abuse by him. He argues on appeal, as he did in the CINA proceedings, that Danielle is not credible. He argues she suffers from mental disorders, she wants to break up his marriage to her mother, and her allegations are in retaliation for his discipline and the requirement that she do chores.
III. Analysis.
Our review of CINA proceedings is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 4; In re K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). We give weight to the findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by them. In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). In evaluating credibility, trial courts have the advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor during testimony, but appellate courts have only the printed record from which to judge credibility. See In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984); Lehmkuhl v. Lehmkuhl, 259 Iowa 686, 692, 145 N.W.2d 456, 460 (1966); In re R.L.F., 437 N.W.2d 599, 600 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989).
The outcome of the case before us depends in large measure on the credibility of Danielle and Jody because their accounts are incompatible with each other. The trial court determined Danielle's evidence was more credible. From our de novo review of the record, we agree. Danielle gave consistent reports and details when interviewed at length by several investigators. The specific dates she cited were confirmed by other testimony or investigation. She had no opportunity to modify her "secret" diary to conform to her allegations. Danielle had intimate knowledge of sexual matters and where Jody's sex videos and magazines were. In contrast, Jody gave inconsistent reports and changed his story when interviewed by different people. His psychological testing and evaluation revealed a pattern of deception. His account of specific dates was challenged by facts discovered during further investigation.
We find clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's determination Danielle is in need of assistance under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and 232.2(6)(d). We also find her placement in the legal custody and guardianship of her maternal aunt and her husband to be in Danielle's best interest.
AFFIRMED.