IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1920

Filed January 24, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.,

Minor Child,

D.M., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the adjudication of her teenaged daughter as a child in 

need of assistance. AFFIRMED.

Daniela Matasovic of Matasovic Law Firm, Ames, for appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Shannon M. Leighty of the Public Defender Office, Nevada, guardian ad 

litem for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2

TABOR, Judge.

A mother, Deborah, challenges the juvenile court’s finding that her 

seventeen-year-old daughter,1 A.M., is a child in need of assistance (CINA). 

Deborah admits striking A.M. but attributes the physical conflict to A.M.’s rebellious 

attitude and argues the one-time incident does not merit involvement of the Iowa

Department of Human Services (DHS) with their family. Because the juvenile 

court’s adjudication and disposition are supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, we affirm.2

In August 2017, a child protective assessment investigator came to A.M.’s

home to investigate an allegation that Deborah punched A.M. in the arm. Deborah 

acknowledged hitting her daughter in frustration over her defiant behavior. Both 

Deborah and A.M. described a badly strained mother-daughter relationship. The 

investigator noted A.M.’s four-to-five inch bruise, fading but still visible more than 

one week after the contact. The investigator observed A.M. was “incredibly thin 

with almost no fat on her body” and “extremely pale.” Deborah told the investigator 

A.M. “refused to eat” and complained about stomach issues. According to medical 

records, A.M. was diagnosed in 2012 with failure to thrive but had not been 

diagnosed with an eating disorder. The investigator did not conclude Deborah was 

 

1 Deborah is A.M.’s biological grandmother but adopted A.M. when she was an infant.

2 Our review of dispositional orders in CINA cases is de novo. In re K.B., 753 N.W.2d 14, 

15 (Iowa 2008). Although we are not bound by the factual findings of the juvenile court, 

we give them weight. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). Our primary concern is 

the child’s best interest. Id. The State’s evidence must be clear and convincing to support 

the CINA determination. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). The State meets that standard when 

there are no serious or significant doubts as to the correctness of conclusions of law drawn 

from the evidence. In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 706 (Iowa 2010).
3

withholding food from A.M. But the investigator decided the allegation of physical 

abuse was founded.

The State filed a CINA petition on August 28, 2017, citing Iowa Code section

232.2(6)(b), (c)(2), and (g) (2017). The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing 

in late October, hearing testimony from A.M.’s mother, father, and older sister, as 

well as two family friends and the DHS social worker. On October 30, 2017, the 

juvenile court issued an adjudication order, finding clear and convincing evidence 

to support the State’s allegations under section 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2). The 

juvenile court found the family needed aid from the DHS, opining:

[A.M.’s] family did recognize the discordant and dysfunctional family 

relationships for a significant period of time before the Iowa DHS 

child abuse assessment investigation was commenced, but failed to 

take any action until after they had DHS contact. [Deborah] claims 

to have undertaken significant research to improve her parenting that 

was unsuccessful and ultimately led to the perpetration of physical 

abuse against [A.M.]. This further suggests the need for a higher 

level of oversight and the provision of services under the auspices of 

the court’s authority to professionally service the child’s and family’s 

needs. 

In a November 15, 2017 report, the DHS recommended A.M. and her parents 

engage in individual and family counseling. Six days later, the juvenile court held 

a hearing and entered a dispositional order, continuing the CINA adjudication and 

requiring the parties to participate in the recommended mental-health treatment 

and counseling. The court also accepted the State’s recommendation that the 

case automatically close on January 31, 2018. The court noted the limited scope 

and duration of the recommended services did not mean A.M. and her family could 

not benefit from the help. Deborah appeals the CINA adjudication and 

dispositional orders.
4

On appeal, Deborah challenges the statutory basis for the CINA finding. 

Under state law, a child in need of assistance means “an unmarried child . . . 

[w]hose parent . . . has physically abused or neglected the child, or is imminently 

likely to abuse or neglect the child.” Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(b). The definition also 

includes a child “who has suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects 

as a result of . . . [t]he failure of the child’s parent . . . to exercise a reasonable 

degree of care in supervising the child.” Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(c)(2). 

Deborah argues the “one-time incident” did not rise to the level of “physical 

abuse” under subsection (6)(b) because her intent as a mother was to discipline 

and provide structure for A.M. Deborah asserts A.M. “provoked” the incident by 

being verbally abusive. But Deborah also asserts she was immediately remorseful 

after hitting her daughter. As for subparagraph (6)(c)(2), Deborah contends the 

State offered no evidence to show a lack of supervision or a failure to provide A.M. 

with food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, and educational opportunities.

In claiming she did not engage in child abuse, Deborah urges two points. 

First, she claims her physical confrontation with A.M. was not abuse because it 

was isolated and minor; Deborah characterizes the contact as a “nudge” that 

resulted in “a faint bruise.” Second, she invokes a parental “right” to educate her 

child by engaging in corporal punishment.

In Iowa, “a parent may only inflict such punishment as is reasonable under 

the facts and circumstances.” State v. Arnold, 543 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa 1996)

(rejecting father’s corporal-punishment defense to a child-endangerment 

prosecution where his belt strikes to daughter’s buttocks left bruising). Although 

the jury in Arnold could have found the child was “willfully disobedient and in need 
5

of discipline,” the evidence also supported a determination the parent’s manner of 

discipline was “unduly severe and harsh.” Id. 

Here, the State offered clear and convincing evidence that Deborah’s 

punishment of A.M. was not reasonable under the circumstances and constituted 

physical abuse. Contrary to her argument on appeal, Deborah was not 

“appropriately disciplining” A.M. when the bruising occurred. Deborah 

acknowledged hitting A.M. out of frustration, and her attorney told the juvenile court 

that Deborah “immediately realized what she did was wrong.”3 Because we find 

adequate support for the juvenile court’s CINA adjudication order under subsection 

(6)(b), we need not address the alternative ground at section (6)(c)(2). Cf. In re 

D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 707 (Iowa 2010) (holding appellate court may affirm 

juvenile court’s termination order on any ground supported by clear and convincing 

evidence).

Deborah raises a second issued on appeal, contending the juvenile court 

should not have continued the CINA adjudication after the November 2017 

disposition hearing. She contends A.M. no longer needs aid from the juvenile court 

because the family has enrolled in therapy. As the juvenile court noted, the family 

likely would not have pursued professional counseling but for the intervention of 

the child welfare system. Deborah’s self-help parenting measures were not 

working to ease the troubled relationship with A.M. We agree with the juvenile 

 

3 The American Academy of Pediatrics has opined that forms of physical punishment, 

including “striking a child with such intensity that marks lasting for more than a few minutes 

occur” and “physical punishment delivered in anger with intent to cause pain” are 

unacceptable, may be “dangerous to the health and well-being of the child,” and should 

never be used. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of 

Child and Family Health, Guidance for Effective Discipline, 101 Pediatrics 723, 726 (April 

1998).
6

court’s decision to continue overseeing this CINA case on a short-term basis to 

ensure positive progress in the home.

AFFIRMED.