IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0749

Filed June 29, 2022

IN THE INTEREST OF L.F., 

Minor Child

B.F., Father,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

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

District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the denial of his motion to close the child-in-need-ofassistance case. AFFIRMED.

Jesse A. Macro, Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for 

appellant father.

Christine E. Branstad of Branstad & Olson Law Office, Des Moines, for 

appellee mother.

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

General, for appellee State.

Shannon M. Leighty of the Public Defender’s Office, Nevada, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor child. 

Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

The father of a teenaged child1 appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his 

request to close the child–in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case, as recommended 

by the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS)—but opposed by the mother.2 

The juvenile court, after dismissing the case once, says not this time. Notably, the 

State, on behalf of DHS, indicated it would not file a response to the father’s appeal 

as it could not defend the juvenile court order. The juvenile court considered the 

motion to close the case at the permanency hearing held in March 2022, but it

denied the motion. The father timely appeals from that order.

To open, a panel of our court considered the juvenile court’s dismissal of 

this CINA action over a year ago. See In re L.F., No. 21-0002, 2021 WL 1400086,

at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021) (reversing the juvenile court’s dismissal of the 

CINA proceeding “[b]ecause the father continues to minimize and deny the sexual 

misconduct, and because L.F. has limited ability to recognize and communicate 

any sexual misconduct she may experience”). The detailed history of the case 

was set out in that decision:

L.F. was born in 2005. She has intellectual disabilities and 

functions at about a second-grade level. She needs at least 

occasional assistance dressing, bathing, and toileting. She cannot 

speak, but she can communicate limited concepts using an assistive 

electronic device or nonverbal signals.

The mother and father were previously married. They had 

four children together—two boys and two girls, L.F. and her older 

sister S.F. The mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 

1 These parents share legal custody of the child with the mother providing physical 

care. There are other children in this family; they are not a part of this proceeding.

2 The State did not file a notice of appeal and informs it will not file a response 

defending the juvenile court order given DHS’s position supporting case closure. 

On the other hand, the mother timely filed a response after the case was 

transferred to us and we consider her arguments in this appeal.
3

February 2016. In October 2016, the mother contacted [DHS] to 

report she suspected the father sexually abused S.F. and L.F. As 

part of the investigation, the mother also reported she suspected the 

father sexually abused her female cousin K.S. DHS noted L.F., as a 

child with special needs, was “very vulnerable” and the father 

showed “very concerning sexualized behaviors,” but DHS ultimately 

determined the allegation of abuse against S.F. and L.F. was not 

founded. In December 2017, the district court entered a decree that 

dissolved the parents’ marriage, granted joint legal custody, placed 

physical care with the mother, and ordered visitation with the father 

that included supervised overnight visits with L.F.

The family again came to the attention of DHS in July 2018 

when the mother reported a witness saw L.F.’s hand on the father’s 

crotch over his clothes and the father did nothing to move or redirect

L.F. The juvenile court soon ordered L.F. temporarily removed from 

her father’s care. In September, DHS determined the allegation of

abuse against L.F. was unfounded in light of an ongoing criminal 

investigation into the matter that limited the DHS investigation. In 

October, the court entered a stipulated order finding L.F. was a 

[CINA].

On November 26, 2018, the juvenile court held a dispositional 

hearing in which the mother submitted evidence of the father’s prior 

alleged sexual misconduct. First, the mother testified that when S.F. 

was three years old, the father “accidentally” put his finger inside her 

vagina while bathing her. Second, the mother provided records from 

the father’s conviction of a sex offense in Minnesota for a 2012 

incident in which he fondled a female physician’s breast during a 

medical appointment for one of the children. Third, K.S. provided a 

letter accusing the father of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct 

in or around 2007 when K.S. was fifteen years old and staying with 

the family. According [to] K.S.’s letter, the father: encouraged K.S. 

to sit on his lap in a hot tub; stayed in and around K.S.’s room for an 

extended time right before she planned to undress to take a shower 

and go to sleep; and rode with K.S. on a four-wheeler and fondled 

her breasts when they were alone. Fourth, S.F., who was seventeen 

years old at the time of the hearing, provided a letter and testified to 

allegations the father engaged in sexual misconduct toward her. S.F. 

alleged the father: cuddled and spooned S.F. in bed and on the 

couch; frequently walked into the bathroom while S.F. was 

showering; looked down S.F.’s shirt and stared at her buttocks while 

she was bent over; and repeatedly pressed his body against hers as 

he walked past. Additionally, S.F. said the father continued bathing

L.F. and told S.F. to lie and say she was bathing L.F.

On November 28, 2018, the juvenile court issued the 

dispositional order at issue here. The court found the father “has a 

very concerning history of . . . sexualized contact primarily involving 

minor females.” The juvenile court noted there is no supporting 
4

evidence for the allegations of sexual misconduct presented at the 

hearing—other than the Minnesota incident that resulted in 

conviction—but the court specifically found the father groped K.S. 

and digitally penetrated S.F.’s vagina. The court also noted a 2016 

psychosexual evaluation of the father concluded he does not have a 

serious mental impairment and is treatable. The court continued the 

CINA adjudication with a long-term goal of establishing a safe 

relationship with both parents, and the court allowed L.F. to visit the 

father with full supervision and restrictions preventing the father from 

assisting L.F. with toileting, bathing, or dressing.

The juvenile court held a series of permanency review 

hearings and issued corresponding orders over the next several 

months. Beginning with the May 13, 2019 permanency order, the 

court allowed L.F. to visit the father at DHS’s discretion. DHS 

developed a safety plan that allowed for supervised visitation and 

largely kept the court’s initial restrictions in place. By the time of the 

final hearing on December 21, 2020, DHS primarily provided the 

safety plan and at least monthly meetings with the family. DHS also 

allowed either the paternal grandmother or the father’s live-in friend 

to supervise L.F.’s visitations with the father. On December 21, the 

court issued its order dismissing the CINA action and closing the 

case. The mother appeals.

Id. at *1–2 (footnotes omitted). In that earlier proceeding, the juvenile court found 

the purposes of the CINA order had been accomplished and the child was no 

longer in need of supervision, care, or treatment under Iowa Code section 

232.103(4)(a) (2018). Id. at *2. After the mother appealed and based on that 

record, our court reversed the juvenile court and returned the case for continued 

DHS supervision and court oversight. Id. at *3–4. The main concern in the first 

appeal related to the father’s “concerning behavior,” his “boundary violations,” and 

his avoidance of “taking full responsibility for his sexual behaviors.” Id. at *2–3. 

Given the child’s limited ability to communicate and self-protect and the father’s 

minimization and denial of sexual misconduct, our court found juvenile court 

supervision remained a need. Id. The case was remanded for further 

proceedings. Id. at *4.
5

With that directive from the court of appeals and after a permanency review 

hearing on July 9, 2021,3the case returned to juvenile court oversight and visits 

continued as had been set before the appeal.4 In September 2021, the father 

moved to “close the case” and again urged that the purposes of the previous orders 

were accomplished and continuation of supervision was “unjustified and 

unwarranted.” In late March 2022, another permanency review hearing was held,

and the juvenile court considered the “motion to close the case,” filed under Iowa 

Code section 232.103(2)(b) (2022). In April, the juvenile court ordered the CINA 

adjudication to continue. The father appeals the April order denying case closure.

We review CINA proceedings de novo. In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186, 192 

(Iowa 2021). We give weight to the juvenile court’s findings but are not bound by 

them. Id. Overall, our principal concern is the best interests of the child. In re

L.H., 904 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017). There must be clear and convincing 

evidence to support the grounds asserted. See id. In determining the best 

interests of the child, “we look to the parent[’s] past performance because it may 

indicate the quality of care the parent is capable of providing in the future.” In re

J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006) (quoting In re C.K., 558 N.W.2d 170, 172 

(Iowa 1997)).

3 Between the closing of the CINA case on December 21, 2020, and the reversal 

of that order in April 14, 2021, the father went about four months without 

supervision by DHS. There were no allegations of any problems during those 

months, so permanency review hearings were set to occur every nine months, the 

safety plan was to continue, and DHS would provide any necessary services. At 

the time of this permanency hearing, the child was fifteen and a half years old. The 

juvenile court noted the parents were “headed to district court in the autumn to 

address [the mother’s] motion to modify custody.” 

4 As of June 2020, the father’s visits comported with the custody ordered visitation. 
6

By stipulation, the CINA adjudication related to a failure to supervise under 

Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2).5 Although two grounds were initially alleged, 

the other ground—that the child had been or was imminently likely to be sexually 

abused by a parent—was withdrawn. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(d).6 No one 

appealed the order of adjudication following disposition. See In re Long, 313 

N.W.2d 473, 477 (Iowa 1981) (concluding a pre-dispositional order for adjudication 

is not a final order appealable as a matter of right). Thus, the father emphasizes

that the case is not over sexual abuse, but was filed as a failure-to-supervise case 

and, under that rubric, the case is resolved. He argues since our previous decision, 

he accepted responsibility for his behaviors and, as confirmed by his therapist, did 

the necessary work in therapy. To be sure, from the July 2021 hearing until the 

March 2022 hearing on the motion to close, the child appeared to be doing well 

and enjoyed visits, showing no fear of her father. DHS felt she looked to her father 

for guidance and attention. The report also confirmed the child’s communication 

skills have improved. With that backdrop, DHS requested case closure. No one 

reported any new concerns and so DHS was conducting only monthly checks on 

the family. The DHS social work case manager felt permanency had been 

achieved for L.F. and, with the achievement of maximum benefits for the family, 

there were no new or different services DHS could offer. 

5 Under section 232.2(6)(c)(2), a child can be adjudicated CINA if the child has 

suffered or is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects from “[t]he failure of the 

child’s parent . . . to exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child.”

6 Section 232.2(6)(d) relates to a child “[w]ho has been, or is imminently likely to 

be, sexually abused by the child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of 

the household in which the child resides.”
7

But this time, the juvenile court disagreed and summarized the status of the 

case in detail in its April order. Several matters troubled the juvenile court. Some 

of those matters concerned the mother as well. Pointing to the March 2022 DHS 

report, the mother quotes from the text that the child still has difficulty recognizing 

boundaries or concerns for her own safety coupled with a limited ability to 

communicate. With those concerns still at hand, she contends the protection 

afforded under CINA proceedings is necessary. Yet, the child returned to the care 

of both parents in June 2020 and no reports of abuse or neglect have surfaced. 

Even though he denies sexual misconduct, the father admitted to past poor 

choices that he claims to have addressed in therapy. DHS maintains the father 

followed all conditions and expectations required to meet the safety plan crafted 

for the child. As a part of the proceedings before the juvenile court, the father’s 

therapist opined that the CINA case should be closed as the father will voluntarily 

adhere to the safety plan and therapy. The father sees his therapist monthly, and 

she specializes in treating sex offenders.

Still, the juvenile court saw red flags. While the father referenced a safety 

plan he would put in place, developed with the help of his therapist, he surprisingly 

could not describe it for the juvenile court at the hearing. And he did not present 

the plan in writing for consideration by the court. As to the father, the juvenile court 

found his testimony to be “guarded” and that he seemed to “avoid details in his 

answers.” See In re T.P., No. 19-0162, 2019 WL 3317346, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. 

July 24, 2019) (“[W]e defer to the juvenile court’s credibility finding that the 

mother’s denial was ‘completely unbelievable.’”). Those impressions became 

more important over the father’s answers about his therapy and the safety plan he 
8

claimed to have in place. Even with the clear crossing of sexual boundaries, the 

father continues to deflect his responsibility, noting that in therapy he talks about 

how certain actions can affect other people and “how even some of the simplest 

action can be taken wrong.” 

To support the findings, the juvenile court thoughtfully summarized the 

history of the case and detailed over thirty-seven pages the impressions, relevant 

facts, and legal authorities that lead to the decision. Observing the father, the 

juvenile court found him to be “evasive” and specifically noted:

What is a court to make of a man convicted upon his own 

admission of a sex-related crime, with a concerning history of 

boundary issues with female youth and a daughter without any 

capacity for self-protection? Upon this court’s thorough review of the 

last several years of information in this case, the answer appears to 

be continued supervision.

This is a case that, at a minimum, involves supervision of 

boundaries. That would not have ever been necessary unless the 

risk of inappropriately crossing boundaries existed. The risk posed 

is two-fold, the father’s history of overstepping boundaries with adult 

and minor females and the child’s lack of self-protective capacities. 

These pose safety hazards that the court’s aid and supervision have 

addressed and continue to address. 

[The father] has, according to his uncontroverted testimony, 

addressed boundaries and safety in therapy with [his therapist]. As 

he plainly stated, he recognizes the harm that inattention to 

boundaries has caused, although he suggested it was [the child] who 

needs the boundaries checked as well. He goes on to acknowledge 

that he wished he handled “it” better.

Therein lies a problem. [The father] acknowledges issues, but 

only partially recognizes the risks. When he does he generally 

attempts to spread the responsibility for causing or mitigating the risk 

to others, including [the child]. He feigns confusion on crossexamination by the [S]tate over the facts originally asserted in the 

statement of facts. He denies any specific[] facts concerning 

crossing boundaries with S.F., but also admits some wrong while 

also professing accountability.

Overall, the court found the “nature of the harm is failure to supervise and 

respect appropriate boundaries.” The juvenile court felt continued supervision was 
9

warranted. In this unique situation, the court hit the nail on the head. See, e.g., In

re T.V., No. 02-1746, 2003 WL 21543784, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 10, 2003) 

(holding that showing sex videos to a young child justified further oversight and 

services). By continuing the CINA case, the juvenile court found the “minimal, 

semi-supervised and liberal visitation provided strikes an appropriate balance 

between safety and the negligible negative results for [the child].” We agree. The 

DHS caseworker acknowledged the child continued to require “100 percent 

supervision” and there were no changes in the child’s ability to “recognize 

boundaries or concerns for her own safety.” Specifically, the case worker testified:

Q. Would she—you indicated that she would be able to tell 

someone in the home and “I don’t want to do that”; correct? A. Yes.

Q. Would she be able to—would she be able to tell someone 

later on that an individual made her do something that she did not 

want to do? . . . . A. I don’t believe that [the child] would be able to 

go into that detail. I do believe, in observing [the child], that she could 

express that she’s upset, and that would continue until somebody 

knew what she was talking about or trying to explain. [The child]

doesn’t just stop when, you know, you’re like, “Okay, stop.” She’ll 

just continue in that emotion.

Q. Would you agree with me that based on your experience, 

[the child] would not be able to understand that a touch was good or 

bad unless it hurt her? A. Or unless she was able to say it was 

uncomfortable, like made her feel uncomfortable; so if it was 

something pleasurable, she wouldn’t be able to describe the 

pleasure. She wouldn’t be able to describe what happened. If that

makes sense.

“[C]hild protection statutes ‘are designed to prevent probable harm to the 

child and do not require delay until after harm has occurred.’” L.H., 904 N.W.2d at

152 (quoting In re L.L., 459 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 1990)). Here, given the 

testimony of the DHS caseworker coupled with the history of crossing sexual 

boundaries with little responsibility for those actions, we find protections for the 

child are necessary and we need not wait for any crossing of the boundaries to get 
10

there. Id. at 150 (noting “we liberally interpret the phrase ‘imminently likely’”

because the abuse is not required “to be on the verge of happening before 

adjudicating a child as one in need of assistance”). Because we do not find much 

has changed since our earlier decision and agree with the juvenile court that 

“sustaining the [permanency] goal and planning for ongoing permanency under the 

unique circumstances of this case requires the court’s aid,” we affirm the juvenile 

court’s decision. 

AFFIRMED.