Opinion
No. 3-255 / 02-1746
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.
Parents appeal, as to four of their five children, from the order that adjudicated the children in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Guy Booth, Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Lee Beine, County Attorney, for appellee.
Francesca Passeri, Tipton, and Brian Fairfield, Lowden, for minor children.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
We are presented with the question of whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support the adjudication of Gerald and Patricia's four youngest children, Tonia, Jerico, Angeline, and Mary Elizabeth, as children in need of assistance. See In re A.D.L., 497 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Our primary concern is the children's best interests. In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 362 (Iowa 2002). Upon our de novo review of the record, Iowa R.App.P. 6.4, we conclude there is clear and convincing evidence to support the adjudications.
In 2002 Tonia, age twelve, Jerico, age ten, Angeline, age three, and Mary Elizabeth, age two, along with their sister Stephanie, age fourteen, were found to be in need of assistance as children having suffered or being imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of (1) mental injury caused by their parents, and (2) the parents' failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervision. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(c)(1), (c)(2) (2001). The adjudications were largely based on what the juvenile court characterized as Gerald's pornography addiction, and Patricia's seeming inability to appreciate how Gerald's behavior had affected or could affect the children. Stephanie was adjudicated on an additional ground: sexual abuse by Gerald. Id. at § 232.2(6)(d). Stephanie was
removed from the home, and Gerald and Patricia do not appeal her adjudication.
Stephanie's allegations resulted in a founded report of lascivious acts with a child. While Gerald and Patricia have always claimed that Stephanie lied about the abuse, the juvenile court found Stephanie's detailed statements to be credible and corroborated. We give weight to such a finding. In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d 323, 329 (Iowa 1989). Moreover, while Gerald and Patricia continue to deny that the sexual abuse occurred, they have not challenged the juvenile court's finding on that matter.
In appealing the adjudication of their four remaining children, Patricia and Gerald argue that there is not clear and convincing proof that Tonia, Jerico, Angeline or Mary Elizabeth were exposed to pornography, or experienced any specific mental injury. However, adjudication was appropriate, not only for proof of past harm, but also upon a sufficient showing that the children were imminently likely to suffer harm, from either a mental injury or inadequate supervision. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(c). This proof exists, to a clear and convincing degree, when the parents' attitudes and behaviors are viewed in light of the opinion of a Department of Human Services investigator.
For several years Gerald kept a substantial amount of pornography located throughout the family home, in areas accessible to the children. Some of this pornography depicted or appeared to depict children. He viewed the pornography in the home on a consistent and frequent basis, often on the computer. Some of the children witnessed Gerald using the computer clad only in underwear, or naked. Stephanie was directly exposed to the pornography, as was Nathan, a child who is no longer in the home. Even if the remaining children were not directly or intentionally exposed to any pornography, Tonia and Jerico were aware of Gerald's habits and the location of at least some of the pornographic materials.
Perhaps equally troubling are Patricia's attitude and behavior. Patricia was the parent primarily responsible for the care and supervision of the children. While expressing her general disapproval of Gerald's behavior, she saw no problem with her husband storing and viewing quantities of pornography in their home, because she believed the children had not been directly exposed. She did not seem to appreciate the potential consequences to her children, or the need to take affirmative steps to protect them from the materials. She also refused to believe Stephanie's claims of sexual abuse, assuming that the child was lying.
Even though Stephanie's adjudication is not in issue, her sexual abuse, and her awareness of the pornography in the home, are relevant to the adjudication of the remaining children. Stephanie's abuse is an integral part of the home environment to which these children were exposed. It was an environment where, at best, neither parent had a satisfactory understanding of appropriate sexual boundaries, and both parents drastically minimized the impact of having extensive amounts of pornography in the home.
The Department of Human Services investigator opined, based on her training and educational background, that it would be harmful for the children's emotional and mental health to be exposed to pornography. We reject the parents' claim that any risk of harm was remediated because Gerald's existing pornography collection had been seized by police. It is clear Gerald and Patricia were unable or unwilling to appreciate the risk to their children from the pervasive presence of pornography in the home. Given their attitudes, there was no reason to believe the parents would alter their previous behavior without intervention.
The record contains clear and convincing evidence that the children were imminently likely to suffer harm, and it is evident from that record that the adjudications were in the children's best interest. The juvenile court's adjudicatory order should be affirmed.