IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., C.R., and H.R., Minor Children, M.L.S., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-568 / 07-1235
Filed September 6, 2007
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., C.R., and H.R.,
Minor Children,
M.L.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Alan D.
Allbee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order adjudicating her children to be
children in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Andrew P. Nelson of Meyer, Lorentzen & Nelson, Decorah, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Andrew Van Der Maaten, County Attorney, and Stephen Belay,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
David Strand, Decorah, for father.
Karl Knudson, Decorah, guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order adjudicating her three children to
be children in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code sections
232.2(6)(c)(2) (children imminently likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of
failure of parent to exercise reasonable degree of care in supervising the
children) and 232.2(6)(d) (children imminently likely to be sexually abused by a
member of the household in which the children reside) (2007). We affirm.
Melody is the mother of daughters A.R. and H.R., ages fourteen and
thirteen, and a son, C.R., age six (“the children”), as well as a nineteen-year-old
son, Stewart, who lives with Melody and the children. Melody was divorced from
the children’s father in late 2003.
In August 2006 Melody and children came to the attention of the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) concerning matters that gave rise to the
present CINA proceeding. In July 2006 Melody had begun dating Buddy, who
thereafter at times spent the night in the mobile home occupied by Melody and
the children. Buddy did not inform Melody, and Melody was apparently unaware,
that Buddy was a registered sex offender who some four years earlier had been
convicted and imprisoned, following a guilty plea, for sexual abuse in the third
degree for sexually abusing his biological, pre-teen daughter who at the time was
a little younger than Melody’s daughters. The abuse had occurred in the home
while the daughter’s mother was at work.
The DHS informed Melody of Buddy’s history of sexual abuse and
investigated for possible abuse or neglect of the children and potential denial of
critical care through failure to provide proper supervision of the children. Melody
3
declined to enter a “Colorado safety plan” for the children, stating Buddy had not
been honest with her and she felt there was no need for such a plan as she
intended to end her relationship with Buddy. The DHS accordingly closed its
investigation, as an “unfounded” report of child abuse or neglect.
Melody nevertheless continued her relationship with Buddy, married him in
December 2006, and he moved to her home in December 2006. In January
2007 the DHS began another abuse or neglect investigation, resulting in a
“founded” report of child abuse, denial of critical care through failure to provide
proper supervision of the children, with Melody and Buddy as the persons
responsible. The State filed a petition seeking adjudication of the children as
CINA.
They were adjudicated CINA in May 2007.
Following a July 2007
dispositional hearing and order, Melody timely appealed the CINA adjudications.
Our review of CINA proceedings is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re
K.N., 625 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 2001). Our fundamental concern is the best
interests of the children. Id. We give weight to the fact findings of the juvenile
court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound
by those findings. In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 1990). The State has
the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa
Code § 232.96(2).
“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence leaving “no
serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from
it.” In re D.D., 653 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Iowa 2002) (quoting Raim v. Stancel, 339
N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983)).
Melody claims her marriage to and cohabitation with Buddy “did not per se
create an imminent risk” of (1) “harm to her minor children . . . and necessarily
4
result[ ] in her inability to provide them with proper supervision,” and (2) “sexual
abuse to the minor children.” She argues the State did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence the statutory grounds for the CINA adjudication alleged by
the State and relied on by the juvenile court.
She relies in large part on a
January 26, 2007 “Colorado safety plan,” signed and agreed to by herself and
Buddy. The plan provides that Buddy will not be alone with any of the children,
he will not be in the home if Melody is not there unless the children are all
elsewhere, and the family will accept services and unannounced visits.
We
conclude other evidence in the record fully supports the juvenile court’s findings
and conclusions to the contrary.
Melody, the children, and Buddy live in a rural mobile home with the
closest neighbor about one-fourth mile away. Melody works two different jobs,
both many miles from the home and involving substantial numbers of evening
and late evening hours. Buddy has helped Stewart acquire some employment.
Neither Melody nor Stewart has a vehicle or driver’s license, and both are
dependent upon Buddy for transportation to and from work. Melody’s “land line”
telephone service was terminated just before she and Buddy were married, and
Buddy has the family’s only cell phone. In short, the family’s home is somewhat
isolated and the family, including the children, is heavily dependent upon Buddy
for its contact with others.
Buddy had pled guilty to sexual abuse of his daughter and admitted to his
guilt during a sexual offender treatment program he started while in prison and
completed while later on parole. He did not inform Melody of his conviction when
he began dating her, spending time with her and the children, and spending the
5
night in her home with her and the children. When Melody was informed of
Buddy’s crime and conviction he denied guilt, insisting his former wife and
children had lied and he had been wronged by the legal system. He refused to
participate in recommended counseling, but at the adjudication hearing testified
he had an appointment to begin counseling in the near future.
At the
adjudication hearing Buddy had not arranged or participated in a requested
psychosocial evaluation. Up to the adjudication hearing, and even during his
testimony at that hearing, Buddy denied that he was guilty of the sexual abuse.
Near the end of his testimony it appears he did finally acknowledge his guilt,
stating: “I did it, and it’s a shameful thing to do, okay.”
Melody’s daughters are just a little older than Buddy’s daughter was at the
time he sexually abused her. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Buddy’s
guilt as provided by his guilty plea, conviction, and subsequent admission during
sexual offender treatment, Melody refuses to believe that Buddy in fact sexually
abused his daughter. Melody feels that Buddy presents no risk to the children.
We conclude, as the juvenile court did, that the children are children in
need of assistance as alleged by the State and shown by the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
