IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 1-653 / 00-1880
Filed December 12, 2001
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., Minor Child,
J.S., Minor Child,
Appellant.
[pic]
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Nathan A.
Callahan, District Associate Judge.
A juvenile appeals from the denial of his application to be excluded
from the sex offender registry. AFFIRMED.
Kellyann M. Lekar of Roberts, Stevens & Lekar, P.L.C., Waterloo, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen C. Odell, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Steven Halbach,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
PER CURIAM
A juvenile appeals from the denial of his application to be excluded
from the sex offender registry. He claims he is a low risk to reoffend and
should not be placed on the registry. We affirm.
On July 1, 1998, Joshua, who was then fifteen years old, was
adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent for committing acts which would
constitute the offense of sexual abuse in the second degree if he had been
an adult. The juvenile court found Joshua had touched the genital area of
a three-year-old child, and had her touch his penis. The petition against
Joshua also alleged he had sexual contact with another child under the age
of twelve, but Joshua was not adjudicated on this ground.
Joshua was placed in foster group care until there was an opening in
a suitable sex offender treatment program. He entered the STOP program in
September 1998. Initially, Joshua did not make much progress in treatment.
In August 1999 he had consensual sexual contact with another participant
in the program. This was considered a violation of the program's rules.
In September 1999, the juvenile court ordered that Joshua would be sent to
the Iowa State Training School for Boys unless he made progress and had no
further substantial rule violations.
Joshua subsequently made progress in the STOP program. In July 2000,
Joshua was placed in the care of his father. The juvenile court ordered
that upon his discharge from residential treatment he should register as a
sex offender. Joshua became eighteen years old on August 13, 2000, and he
was released from juvenile court supervision.
Joshua filed a motion to be excluded from the sex offender registry.
The State resisted the motion. A hearing was held on October 13, 2000.
The juvenile court denied the motion. The court stated Joshua had made
good plans for the future, but the court was concerned about whether he
would follow through with treatment in the future once the State was no
longer monitoring him. The court determined Joshua had not shown progress
over a sufficient period of time to exclude him from the sex offender
registry. The court noted that if Joshua kept his life on track in the
future he could reapply to be excluded from the sex offender registry.
We generally review juvenile delinquency proceedings de novo. In re
S.M.D., 569 N.W.2d 609, 610 (Iowa 1997).
Joshua contends the juvenile court should have granted his request to
be exempted from the sex offender registry. He claims he has a low
potential for reoffending. He points out that he successfully completed
treatment and was voluntarily participating in after-care. Joshua admitted
he had victimized his younger brother, but asserted he and his brother had
begun the healing process.
Chapter 692A requires the registration of sex offenders with the
purpose of protecting society. In re S.M.M., 558 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Iowa
1997). The relevant portion of Iowa Code section 692A.2(4) (1999)
provides:
A person who is convicted, as defined in section 692A.1, of either a
criminal offense against a minor, or an other relevant offense as a
result of adjudication of delinquency in juvenile court shall be
required to register as required in this chapter unless the juvenile
court finds that the person should not be required to register under
this chapter.
The statute begins with the general requirement that all offenders in the
specified group of crimes be required to register, then allows a juvenile
court to excuse registration in some cases. S.M.M., 558 N.W.2d at 407.
The court has discretion to determine whether a juvenile should be excused
from registering. Id. The burden is on the juvenile to rebut the
presumption in favor of registration. Id.
Joshua's therapist at the STOP program, Don Kiesewetter, testified he
did not think Joshua was a high risk to reoffend. Joshua's current
therapist, Russell Kinney, testified, "I don't see Josh as a primary risk
to the community at this point." On the other hand, Joshua's juvenile
probation officer, Robert Speltz, filled out an Iowa Sex Offender Registry
Risk Assessment which determined Joshua was a high risk. Speltz's findings
were based on the fact the delinquency petition alleged Joshua had
committed sexual abuse against two children.
We determine the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion under
the facts in this case. There was evidence Joshua had sexually abused
three children--the two mentioned in the delinquency petition and his
younger brother. The fact that he had multiple victims would tend to
increase the likelihood he might reoffend. Additionally, while he was in
sex offender treatment, Joshua had consensual sexual contact with another
participant of the treatment program. This was clearly against the rules
of the program. Joshua continued to talk to this person, even after staff
advised him to sever the relationship.
Also, as the juvenile court pointed out, Joshua had been away from
State supervision for only a short period of time. While he was continuing
with treatment on his own, it was unknown whether he would continue to do
so. As the court mentioned, Joshua could request to be excluded from the
sex offender registry at a future time, when he would be able to show a
consistent period of commitment to treatment goals.
We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
AFFIRMED.
