IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1136

Filed December 23, 2015

JESSICA WILBUR, Individually and As 

Parent and Next Friend of I.N.,

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

vs.

PAUL LAFAUCE and CHARLES PALMER, 

Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services,

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellees.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill, 

Judge.

The director of the department of human services appeals the awards of 

declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees, and Jessica Wilbur crossappeals the jury’s verdicts denying her monetary and punitive damages on her 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. REVERSED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON 

CROSS-APPEAL.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor 

General, and Charles K. Phillips and Molly M. Weber, Assistant Attorneys 

General, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Martin Diaz of Martin Diaz Law Firm, Iowa City, for appellee/crossappellant.

Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.

The director of the department of human services (DHS) appeals the 

awards of declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees, and Jessica Wilbur 

cross-appeals the jury’s verdicts denying her monetary and punitive damages on 

her claims against DHS child protective worker Paul LaFauce under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Because Wilbur did not establish there had been a violation of her 

constitutional rights, and she no longer lives in the state of Iowa, she lacked 

standing to challenge DHS future actions by declaratory action. We reverse the 

district court’s award of injunctive relief and attorney fees and costs. We affirm 

on Wilbur’s cross-appeal. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This suit arose as a result of dueling child abuse allegations assigned to 

DHS child protective worker Paul LaFauce concerning a child, I.N., born in 2004 

to Jessica Wilbur.1 The biological father of I.N. is Robert Nino. Wilbur was 

fourteen years old when she gave birth to I.N. and Nino was eighteen years old. 

Due to the parents’ ages at the time of I.N.’s birth, Nino was placed on the sex 

offender registry. There is no decree fixing custody, visitation, or support 

between Wilbur and Nino. For all but ten months of I.N.’s life, the child has 

resided with her maternal grandmother Debra. Nino has sporadically visited with 

the child. 

In 2009, Wilbur, her two children (I.N., and a younger half-sibling, S.F.,

born in 20082), and Wilbur’s paramour, Gilbert, were residing with Debra and 

 

1 Wilbur has since married and is now known as Jessica Coronado. 

2 S.F.’s father is no longer in the picture.
3

Wilbur’s brother (age fourteen) and sister (age nineteen) in Guernsey, Poweshiek 

County, Iowa. 

In early October 2009, Wilbur went to Texas with Gilbert and S.F. for an 

extended period, leaving I.N. with Debra. Nino arranged with both Wilbur and 

Debra to have visitation with I.N. the weekend of November 6-8. 

Nino went with his sister and mother to pick up I.N. from Debra’s home in 

Guernsey on November 6. He noted Debra’s home did not smell good, and I.N. 

was dirty and wearing ill-fitting clothing. Nino took the child to his parents’ mobile 

home in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, where he was residing with his 

parents and his wife and their three children.

3 After arriving in Iowa City in the 

evening, I.N. was preparing to shower and Nino’s wife discovered blood on I.N.’s 

underwear. Nino was concerned for I.N., but also concerned about his status as 

a sex offender. He contacted DHS and spoke with child protective worker 

LaFauce,4 who instructed Nino to take I.N. for a physical examination. Nino 

expressed concerns that I.N. was not properly supervised in Debra’s home and 

that I.N. had said she had been kicked in the stomach by Wilbur’s sibling in that 

home.

At about 7:30 p.m. on November 7, I.N. was examined in the emergency 

room at University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics (UIHC). The examination report 

noted father’s “concern of sexual assault.” The examining doctor, Gregory Bell,

 

3 Nino was in the process of moving to Marshalltown, Iowa, but he and his family were 

residing in Iowa City.

4

LaFauce covers a five-county area, which does not include Poweshiek County. His 

case load involves eleven to twenty child abuse assessments, courtesy interviews and 

observations of children, and dependent adult abuse investigations per month. When 

“on-call,” he responds to emergency calls from all five counties. 
4

noted a reddened area around I.N.’s genitals. He consulted with Dr. Oral, the 

child protection team physician. Dr. Bell wrote in his report that “blood was 

evident at the vulvar area of the underwear.” Dr. Bell determined that there was 

“a lack of any apparent trauma herein” to I.N., and she would be discharged with 

recommended follow up with Dr. Oral on Monday at the clinic. A UIHC social 

worker, Valarie Van Zee, interviewed Nino and Nino’s mother during the hospital 

visit. Nino told Van Zee that I.N. said her uncle (Wilbur’s brother) had hit her and 

that they slept in the same bed at times. Van Zee opined in her report,5

I feel this is abuse because there is concern about patient’s 

reactions to the questions asked of her about the blood on her 

underwear. Patient’s father also has concerns for denial of critical 

care based upon the home environment. The ETC nurse did notice 

the patient was tearful when asked about the blood. 

 

Nino was instructed to follow up with Dr. Oral and was given her phone number 

to call on Monday to make an appointment.6 He took I.N. back to his parents’

home in the early morning hours of Sunday, November 8, 2009. At 1:15 a.m., 

Van Zee informed LaFauce of the results of the medical examination, and 

recommended that DHS further investigate the allegations that I.N. had been 

sexually abused and denied critical care.

On November 8, Debra called Nino repeatedly, and he eventually 

informed Debra that he would not be bringing I.N. back to her. At about 1:10 

p.m., the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department received a call from Wilbur 

complaining of Nino’s failure to return I.N. to Wilbur’s mother. Officer Hipple 

 

5

LaFauce did not receive a copy of the UIHC emergency room visit report until 

November 10, 2009.

6 Nino would testify the social worker at the hospital told him not to return I.N. to Debra’s 

until he talked to LaFauce and that LaFauce told him the next day not to return her to 

mom or grandma. 
5

wrote, “There are no custody arrangements made and child is not in danger, just 

mom wants grandma to have the child while she is in Texas. I told complainant I 

could not take the child from its father on her request. Ref to her attny.” 

At approximately 2:00 p.m. on November 8, Debra called the DHS child 

abuse hotline in Poweshiek County and reported that Nino had taken I.N. for a 

visit and was refusing to return her to her home in Guernsey. The complaint was 

forwarded to LaFauce as “it is a Johnson Co. case since [I.N.] lives in Iowa City 

now.” DHS recorded a report that Nino was on the sex offender registry, “runs

drugs and guns,” and that many people lived in the mobile home where I.N. was 

staying. LaFauce consulted with the Poweshiek County DHS supervisor, Judy 

Davidson, and then spoke with Johnson Assistant County Attorney Beth Beglin, 

and Juvenile Assistant County Attorney, Kristin Parks, on Sunday, November 8 

around 6:00 p.m. Attorney Parks suggested to LaFauce that he ask Nino to 

voluntarily place I.N. into foster care. At about 8 p.m. on November 8, LaFauce

and a deputy sheriff went to Nino’s home and obtained Nino’s signature on a 

voluntary foster care placement agreement.7 I.N. then was taken to a foster 

family. Nino would later testify he believed he did the right thing by agreeing to 

the voluntary placement on that Sunday. 

On November 9 at 11:30 a.m., the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office 

received a request from an attorney, Eric Sedig, to do a “welfare check” on I.N. 

because her father “will not give her back/father is a registered sex offender.” 

Officer Kevin Elliot spoke with Nino at his home at about 12:20 p.m. and was told 

 

7 Voluntary foster care placements last no more than ninety days. DHS policy at the 

time was that the signature of one parent or guardian on that agreement was sufficient. 
6

“LaFauce from DHS has the child, [I.N.], for an evaluation due to possible abuse 

while child was at her grandparents’ house.”

On the afternoon of November 9, LaFauce communicated to Debra that 

he was investigating reports of child abuse, and I.N. was in foster care. Debra 

told LaFauce Nino was I.N.’s father and I.N. “loves her dad and wanted to go with 

him last weekend.” She stated no legal custody had been established in Iowa 

courts for custody between either parent, Debra did not have legal custody, and 

nothing was arranged by Wilbur in writing in terms of Debra’s ability to seek 

medical treatment for I.N. while Wilbur was in Texas. LaFauce asked Debra to 

have Wilbur call him.

Wilbur learned about I.N.’s placement from Debra and Nino. At some 

point thereafter she began the car trip back from Texas to return to Iowa. (Wilbur 

testified it was a twenty-hour drive and she and Gilbert arrived in Iowa in the 

early morning hours of Tuesday, November 10.) 

LaFauce arranged to have I.N. interviewed at the area Child Protective 

Center (CPC). On Tuesday afternoon, November 10, I.N. underwent a physical

and gynecological examination and was interviewed at the CPC. During the 

interview, I.N. stated she lived with her grandmother, aunt, and uncle. She 

stated her mother was in Texas with I.N.’s little sister and I.N.’s stepdad, Gilbert, 

who “lives in Texas.” She stated her aunt and uncle sometimes babysit her; she 

did not report being hurt by grandmother, aunt, or uncle. 

At 4:30 p.m. on November 10, Wilbur contacted LaFauce. She told him 

she just arrived in Iowa and had been in Texas the last two months, she was 

engaged, and had been in Texas caring for her fiancé’s relatives. LaFauce 
7

conveyed to Wilbur that I.N.’s CPC examination was completed and “updated her 

on the medical evaluation and interview results.” Wilbur told LaFauce Nino was 

I.N.’s father and she wants him to be in I.N.’s life. She also told him there had 

been no legal custody established in court. LaFauce spoke with Wilbur “about 

the importance of getting legal custody established and the importance of a more 

formal custodial and visitation arrangement especially if she is going to be gone 

so much and be out of the state for extended periods of time.” LaFauce told 

Wilbur that Nino had voluntarily placed I.N. in foster care but had then asked that 

the child now be placed with his sister Ruby until further investigation was 

complete and Debra’s home could be assessed, to which Wilbur responded 

“good.” LaFauce also told Wilbur that DHS was not open the next day (which 

was Veterans’ Day) and that he would be unavailable that day as he was on call, 

and he would be out of office Thursday evening and all day Friday, but would “try 

to get a courtesy[8]observation request for her and [Debra’s] home done by the 

end of this week or early next week.” His notes indicate he also told her,

[O]nce the courtesy interviews and observations were complete if 

the home is safe [I.N.] could be returned as early as . . . next week. 

I told her that due to the nature of the allegations I would need to 

consult with the Johnson Co. Attorney on Thursday to review the 

case with them.

 

On November 11, Attorney Natalie Cronk telephoned LaFauce and stated 

she represented Wilbur, who wanted her child back. LaFauce informed her that 

the child had been placed in voluntary foster care by the father. Cronk asserted 

the father had no right to make such an agreement, with which LaFauce 

 

8

“Courtesy” in this context refers to one county’s DHS seeking assistance from another 

county.
8

disagreed. Cronk asked how the mother could get her child back and LaFauce 

informed her of the concerns about the grandmother’s home. 

On Wednesday November 11, I.N. was transferred to Nino’s sister Ruby. 

Ruby signed a safety plan agreeing she would not allow contact between I.N. 

and Nino, she would “assist with all visitations between I.N. and her parents,”

would comply with all DHS requests for services, and keep eye contact with the 

child if she was playing outside. The safety plan was not signed by either of 

I.N.’s parents.

On Friday, November 13, Cronk, on behalf of Wilbur, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus, asserting I.N.’s removal was illegal and demanding the 

return of the child. Notice was served at LaFauce’s office that day. LaFauce

was working in Des Moines that day and did not return to the office until 6 or 7 

p.m. A hearing on that petition was set for December 1. 

At about 4:45 p.m. on Monday, November 16, LaFauce spoke with Wilbur 

and informed her he would be requesting that Poweshiek County DHS make a 

courtesy observation of her home, conduct courtesy interviews, and make an 

assessment as to I.N.’s safety. 

On Tuesday, November 17, Poweshiek County DHS worker Megan See 

conducted the courtesy assessment of Debra’s home at LaFauce’s request. See 

spoke with Wilbur that day; she did not speak with Debra as she was not there. 

Wilbur told See she would not be comfortable having her sister watching I.N.

because she was developmentally delayed and had poor anger control. After 

hearing from See at about 3 p.m., LaFauce prepared a safety plan to present to 

Wilbur pursuant to which I.N. would be supervised by appropriate caretakers and 
9

not Wilbur’s sister, and would provide Debra with “appropriate paperwork so that 

I.N.’s medical and educational needs are met when [Wilbur] is not available.” 

LaFauce contacted Wilbur and they made an appointment for her and Debra to 

come to his office to discuss matters on November 18 at 4:45 p.m. 

On November 18, at about 2:50 p.m., Wilbur called LaFauce and informed 

him she would not sign the safety plan on advice of her attorney. 

In a letter dated November 18, Cronk wrote to LaFauce and Paige Casteel 

(LaFauce’s supervisor) asserting, “It is . . . my understanding you have no Order 

granting authority to restrain, place, or otherwise withhold the child from her 

mother. In effect, you have kidnaped her from her mother.” The letter continued, 

“Unless you can provide me with documentation to the contrary today, by the 

close of business, my client intends to pick up her child at the home of Ruby . . . 

today where you have put [I.N.], directly following your receipt of this letter.” 

Cronk’s letter was served at LaFauce’s office at 4:15 p.m.

LaFauce called Wilbur at about 5 p.m. and left a message asking if she 

was still coming to his office. 

Wilbur did not attend the meeting scheduled with LaFauce. Rather, she, 

Debra, Cronk, and a private investigator arrived at Ruby’s home and Wilbur 

stated she was there to get I.N. The private investigator was recording the 

interaction.9 A chaotic situation ensued. Several members of Nino’s family lived 

in the same neighborhood as Ruby. I.N., who had been shopping with another 

aunt, arrived in a car. I.N. saw her mother and gave her a hug, saying something 

 

9 The video recording of the interaction is very difficult to see as it was dark at the time of 

the recording.
10

to the effect, “I didn’t think I would see you.” Nino got a call from his sister, 

Becky, saying Wilbur and her mother were trying to take I.N. Nino called 

LaFauce and said Wilbur was trying to take I.N. from Ruby. Ruby got a call from 

LaFauce and while on the phone with him at about 5:20 p.m., Wilbur carried I.N. 

to her vehicle. Ruby and Nino (who had arrived at the scene) protested, but 

Wilbur and Debra drove off with I.N., leaving behind Cronk and the private 

investigator. Nino attempted to follow Wilbur’s vehicle and “was thinking about 

stopping them. And then I realized my daughter was in the car and I just—I got 

upset.” Nino called the sheriff’s office and was told there was nothing they could 

do. 

Johnson County DHS requested courtesy welfare checks be made at 

Debra’s home in Poweshiek County because DHS had not been able to speak 

with Debra about concerns of Wilbur’s sister caring for I.N. Casteel later testified

those attempts were unsuccessful in speaking with Debra because they “didn’t at 

any time find anybody when they went out.” 

On December 9, LaFauce completed his child abuse assessment report.10 

I.N. was back in Poweshiek County, not Johnson County. LaFauce later 

completed an affidavit, which was used as the basis for a child-in-need-ofassistance petition filed in Poweshiek County. The petition asserted I.N. was 

likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of the failure of a parent, guardian, or 

custodian or other member of the household in which the child resides to 

exercise a reasonable degree of care in supervising the child. 

 

10 DHS is required to complete a child abuse assessment within twenty working days.
11

On January 5, 2010, Wilbur filed a “petition at law, for declaratory 

judgment, for injunction and jury demand,” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging: she had sole custody of I.N. pursuant to Iowa Code section 600B.40; 

Nino had no custodial rights to the child; “[a]t the time when [LaFauce] obtained 

the voluntary foster care placement agreement from Mr. Nino, [he] knew that 

Robert Nino did not have a court order granting him custodial or visitation rights”; 

LaFauce transferred I.N. out of the foster home, “and without any legal basis, 

transferred her care to the sister of Robert Nino,” who “was not a qualified foster 

care provider, nor was her home a qualified foster care home”; on November 12, 

LaFauce was advised by the county attorney’s office that the fact Nino was a 

registered sex offender did not prevent him from having contact with his 

biological children and “there was no legal basis to proceed to remove [I.N.] from 

her mother’s home”; despite a writ of habeas corpus being filed on November 13, 

and without legal basis, “LaFauce and IDHS continued to refuse to return” the 

child to Wilbur; on November 16, LaFauce prepared and sent parental 

notification of a child-abuse assessment advising Wilbur two allegations of child 

abuse were being assessed, one of which was allowing access to the child by a 

registered sex offender; on November 18, Wilbur advised DHS that unless it 

could produce an order granting authority to restrain or otherwise withhold the 

child from Wilbur, she “would take steps to pick up the child at the home of Mr. 

Nino’s sister”; DHS “failed to produce any order”; Wilbur went to recover the child 

from Nino’s sister and “LaFauce sought to intervene and prevent [Wilbur] from 

recovering her child”; and Wilbur and her daughter had constitutionally protected 
12

liberty, property, privacy, and procedural and substantive due process rights in 

their continued parent-child relationship” with which LaFauce interfered. 

Wilbur asked for monetary and punitive damages against LaFauce. She 

also asserted: 

51. Further, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [Wilbur] seeks 

declaratory and injunctive relief against Charles Krogmeier,[11]in his 

official capacity as the Director of the Iowa Department of Human 

Services, declaring (enjoining), as a violation of Iowa law and 

constitutional principles, IDHS’ policy of taking possession and 

control of children by obtaining signatures on voluntary foster care 

placement agreements from parents who have not yet established 

custodial rights.

52. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [Wilbur] seeks 

declaratory and injunctive relief against Charles Krogmeier, in his 

official capacity as the Director of the Iowa Department of Human 

Services, declaring (enjoining), as a violation of Iowa law and 

constitutional principles, IDHS’ policy of taking possession and 

control of children by obtaining signatures on voluntary foster care 

placement agreements from only the non-custodial parent. 

An answer was filed on behalf of LaFauce and the director in which it was 

asserted, in part, Iowa Code section 600B.40 had no application in cases where 

the father has acknowledged paternity and “the grandmother appears to have 

been serving as the child’s custodian during much of the time prior to the 

investigation.” The answer also stated, “[T]he grandmother allowed the child to 

go with Nino, DHS interviewed Nino and “discussed concerns about the child,”

the child was evaluated and no evidence of physical trauma was found, but “[i]t is 

denied the evaluations reached the conclusions as to the occurrence of abuse.” 

Further, “LaFauce was advised that neither parent had a court order and that the 

nature of their custodial arrangements was informal.” It was asserted the 

placement with Nino’s sister was “with the agreement of both parents.” The 

 

11 Charles Palmer was later substituted as defendant director of DHS.
13

answer also asserted, “It is admitted that the parent child relationship is protected 

by the constitution. It is denied that the provisions cited by [Wilbur] were violated 

in this matter, or that [Wilbur] has standing to raise them. . . .” A number of 

affirmative defenses were raised, including that Wilbur lacked standing to assert 

a Fourth Amendment claim on her own behalf, or to assert rights other than 

those of the named plaintiffs, the defendants were entitled to qualified or absolute 

immunity, and “[t]he issues regarding the validity of the foster placement 

agreements and safety plans are moot.”

LaFauce and the director filed a motion for summary judgment. In support 

of that motion, they argued, in part, that Wilbur had not stated a violation of a 

clearly established federal right that would entitle her to injunctive relief, and she 

had failed to show she will suffer harm if injunctive relief is not issued or to allege 

a personal stake in the future of DHS’s policy regarding voluntary placement—

”She lives in Texas and does not allow the Iowa father to see the child.” The 

motion stated Wilbur did not allege any ongoing threat that the challenged 

practices applied to her. LaFauce also argued he was entitled to qualified 

immunity. The district court ruled disputed material facts precluded summary 

judgment, and the matter proceeded to trial. 

Jury trial regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

Wilbur’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims were tried to a jury on January 28

through February 4, 2014. Wilbur’s monetary claims against LaFauce were 

rejected by the jury, which found LaFauce did not violate Wilbur or I.N.’s 

constitutional rights of privacy or due process. 
14

Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. 

On February 5, 2014, while the jury was deliberating the damages claims, 

the district court heard Wilbur’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The 

director objected as Wilbur now lived in Texas. The director also argued it was 

not at all clear on what constitutional grounds Wilbur was seeking injunctive 

relief. The court noted the objections and proceeded to receive evidence.

Cronk—having withdrawn as counsel for Wilbur—testified that prior to 

November 2009 she had seen the use of a voluntary foster care placement 

agreement signed by the noncustodial parent only five times. The voluntary 

foster care placement agreement form (form 470-0715) used in November 2009 

stated it must be signed by a parent, guardian or child age 18 or older. However, 

the form was revised in December 2011, and the DHS manual in July 27, 2012, 

and now requires, “Both parents’ signatures are necessary when both have 

custody of the child.” Cronk testified she had not seen the revised form used 

where both parents had signed, but had seen it used where only one parent had 

signed. 

Prior to Cronk testifying about DHS’s use of safety plans, the director 

objected on relevancy grounds because the petition did not raise any claim as to 

safety plans. The court noted the objection. Cronk was asked if she had seen a 

safety plan used “to take a child out of their home and into another place.” Cronk 

testified she has seen the use of safety plans for out-of-home placement not 

involving a CINA in “a couple hundred” cases. The DHS manual states safety

plans are to be used “when it’s been determined that a child is conditionally safe 

in their home.” They can be signed by a “parent/caregiver.”
15

It was Cronk’s opinion that DHS cannot employ and parents cannot 

engage with DHS in a voluntary foster care arrangement for the best interests of 

the child absent imminent danger. 12 She opined, “DHS should never seek the 

removal of a child under any circumstances unless the child cannot safely remain 

in the home.” 

Wendy Rickman, a division administrator at DHS, was asked, “What 

statutory authority was there for the use of a Voluntary Foster Care Placement 

Agreement such as this form back in 2009?” She responded:

The federal statutory authority comes from primarily two sections of 

the Social Security Act. Title IV-E really under that Act articulates 

how foster care payments are paid for or how the federal partners 

share in the payment of foster care placement, so that’s more of a 

fiscal section. And that section speaks to voluntary placements. 

The second is Title IV-B, which lays out more of the federal 

expectation around our practice with our families. So one is fiscal, 

one is more practice. In the Iowa Code, we use . . . 232 of the Iowa 

Code. 

Rickman testified about the changes in DHS policy with regard to 

voluntary foster care placement agreements; the department now seeks both 

parents’ signatures. She stated that policy was a result of “moving toward more 

fulsome agreement of all parties in a case over a period of time.” Plaintiff’s 

counsel asked, “And did that grow out of a belief that there was a fundamental 

constitutional right that each had to the relationship with the child?” Rickman 

answered, “Yes.” 

 

12 Iowa Code section 232.78 governs “temporary custody of a child pursuant to ex parte 

order” of the court. Section 232.79 allows a “peace officer or juvenile court officer” to 

“take a child into custody” without a court order and without the consent of a parent, 

guardian or custodian if the child is in “imminent danger” and “[t]here is not enough time 

to apply for an order under section 232.78.” 
16

On cross, Rickman repeated there are federal and state legal authorities 

for voluntary placement agreements. She also acknowledged Iowa Code 

chapter 234 deals with temporary custody and section 234.35 “talks about 

circumstances under which we can get voluntary placements into place.”

13

 

Concerning the change in policy regarding parents’ signatures on 

voluntary foster care placement, she explained:

Primarily the issue mostly centered around noninvolvement—our 

inability to involve noncustodial fathers. So over the past several 

years, there’s been a much deeper understanding of the need for 

typically dads in their families and so we’ve put a much heavier 

push on the idea of that both parents need to be involved. But the 

issue grew initially because our primary relationship typically was 

with mothers and that we were not doing the job that we should do 

to involve the fathers in the case planning around their children. 

Rickman expressed the opinion that requiring the signature of both parents or 

even the “custodial” parent on either the voluntary foster care placement 

agreement or a safety plan in all instances would be detrimental. She explained 

that 

our requirement for due diligence of our workers to involve both 

parents and other family members in this case planning activity is 

adequate. To further limit our ability to work with the family unit as 

it exists or as we can ascertain would limit our ability to do good 

case planning on the part of kids and their parents.

The trial judge also asked its own questions of Rickman. The court asked 

what authorizes DHS to have a safety plan with a nonparent that limits contact 

with the parents. Rickman said DHS would not have such authority; “it’s not 

effective.” She testified Ruby had been placed in a difficult situation here. 

 

13 Iowa Code section 234.35(c) states DHS is responsible for paying the cost of foster 

care for a child “[w]hen the department has agreed to provide foster care services for the 

child for a period of not more than ninety days on the basis of a signed placement 

agreement between the department and the child’s parent or guardian.” 
17

The trial judge also asked what authority existed for DHS to ask Wilbur to 

enter into a safety plan before returning the child to her; “I’m talking about the 

fact scenario we have here where, again, there’s an argument that can be made 

that the child was, quote unquote, being held hostage until the safety plan was 

negotiated.” Rickman explained:

Specifically to this case, I believe the mom knew and 

understood and agreed with the idea that dad was a good 

placement for the kid, whether it was visitation or spending time 

with him. I believe she was in agreement with the placement at the 

aunt’s house. I think we had a good conversation with her about 

that. I think they saw that relative as an appropriate placement. A 

lot of the concern that we had about [maternal sister], the sister in 

the grandmother’s house, that concern actually came to us from the 

mom. When we interviewed the mom, she talked about [sister] 

kicking and biting and being physically aggressive and not 

understanding what her actions meant and baby-sitting. So there 

had been, in this particular case, a set of conversations that 

conveyed to us, conveyed to that worker—and it’s a typical way 

that these case progress—that she was in agreement with where 

we are and was in agreement with the idea that she would remedy 

the situation at Debra’s, that she intended to go back there and that 

if we had concerns, she was in agreement that that should be 

remedied and we’d do it in a safety plan. And that went all the way 

through the afternoon until, frankly, [I.N.] was taken out of the 

aunt’s house. 

. . . .

Q. [By Court] And again, I’m not trying to split hairs, but you 

used the word return [the] child to her and I guess that’s what I—

one of the things I’m hanging up on here is: By saying you’re on a 

path to return the child to her, that’s an admission that you were in 

possession of the child, and that something else had to happen 

before the child could go back to mom? A. I think—I do think that’s 

true.

Q. [By Court] And if I’m reading your answer right or 

understanding your answer right, you believe that mom up to that 

point had consented? A. Okay.

Q. [By Court] And then is it true that after Ms. Wilbur 

retrieved the child from Ruby’s house that no other action was 

immediately taken to go after the child or somehow obtain custody

or an order to get this child back away from mom? A. No. I think—

We asked for a safety check at that point at the grandmother’s 

house and I can’t recall exactly how that was carried out[.]
18

The court also asked that LaFauce’s supervisor, Paige Casteel, be called 

back to testify. Neither party had questions for Casteel. However, the court 

asked Casteel what her “impression was” as to Nino’s questions about wanting 

advice on custody. After Casteel explained that Nino was informed DHS did not 

give legal advice, the court then asked, “So from that conversation, were you 

aware that there were no formal custody orders in place?” She stated they knew 

paternity had been established and he’d had contact with the child but there was 

never a formal custody or visitation arrangement. The court continued 

questioning Casteel about what authority Nino had over the child; “So you are 

telling me that just based upon Mr. Nino’s status as a biological parent, you felt 

that he had some sort of custody rights over [I.N.]?” Casteel explained, “Yes. 

And he had her at that time.” 

The court asked Casteel on what authority DHS asked Wilbur to sign a 

safety plan. Casteel explained a safety plan is a voluntary document and if a 

parent is not agreeable “it could lead to something that we talk to the County 

Attorney about if we need to further protect the child.” The court asked if Wilbur 

signing the safety plan was a condition of having I.N. returned, and Casteel said, 

“No. That’s not what we were thinking then.” The court continued to question 

Casteel.

The district court required the parties to provide post-trial filings. From 

plaintiff, the court stated, “[W]hat I want from you is, again, a summary of the 

relief you’re requesting and your authority for that. Presumably you may want to 

address the issues raised by the defense, the standing issues and whether it’s a 

facial challenge or an as-applied challenge.” From the director, the court stated, 
19

“[O]bviously what position—what you’re asking me to do or what you believe I 

don’t have any authority to do given the procedural posture of the case.” 

When plaintiff filed her post-trial brief, she also filed an affidavit in which 

Wilbur stated she lived in Texas but two of her children returned to Iowa each 

summer and resided with their grandmother and their fathers lived in Iowa.

In its June 30, 2014 ruling, the district court set out Wilbur’s assertions and 

the parties’ arguments concerning the requested declaratory ruling and injunctive 

relief.

Plaintiff asserts the Court should declare that permitting only 

one parent to sign a child into foster care violates the constitutional 

rights of the other parent, where the other parent has the right to 

custody of that child, and it also violates the rights of the child, who 

has a privacy interest in not being seized from the care of a 

custodial parent. Plaintiff further asserts that Iowa law, under Iowa 

Code § 600B.40, recognizes that when a child is born out-ofwedlock, the mother has sole custody. Plaintiff contends that a 

[Voluntary Foster Care Placement Agreement] VFCPA can never 

be used with an out-of-wedlock father who has not acknowledged 

paternity, or one where paternity has been established but no 

custodial rights have been adjudicated by the Court. Plaintiff also 

contends that, when the Court has established custodial rights to a 

child, it is a violation of the custodial parent’s right to the custody of 

the child to allow a non-custodial parent to separately consent to 

the transfer of custody to Iowa DHS. Plaintiff requests the Court 

enjoin Iowa DHS from creating policies or procedures, or carrying 

out practices, that violate these requests.

With respect to Safety Plans, Plaintiff argues that using a 

safety plan to remove or keep a child from her usual and customary 

home, without the consent of the child’s primary custodian, is 

unconstitutional. Plaintiff further argues that the use of a Safety 

Plan to prevent a parent from having physical contact with her child, 

without the consent of the parent, also is unconstitutional. . . . 

. . . .

Defendants’ position is that, without a constitutional violation, 

there can be no relief, and once the jury determined there was no 

constitutional violation, the right to any type of equitable relief 

vanished. Defendants further argue that even if Plaintiff had 

prevailed on the constitutional claims, Plaintiff would not be entitled 

to equitable relief because Plaintiff has not proven an immediate 
20

and real threat of irreparable future injury. Defendants contend it is

undisputed that Jessica and [I.N.] no longer reside in Iowa and 

moved to Texas in 2011, where they have remained. Defendants 

also contend there is no immediate threat to Plaintiff from Iowa

VFCPAs, and Plaintiff has no personal stake in the use of such 

agreements by DHS in the future. Defendants assert Plaintiff has 

not shown a real and immediate threat of irreparable harm, and

Plaintiff did not present any evidence that Plaintiff may be subject to 

future placement of the child based on the child’s relationship with 

her father. Defendants further assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to 

declaratory relief because Plaintiff has not shown an immediate and 

real future controversy with the Iowa DHS.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not formally sought 

injunctive or declaratory relief with regard to Safety Plans, which 

Defendants claim is evidenced by the pleadings.

Defendants further argue that the claims for equitable relief 

have been rendered moot by the DHS’s new policy of requiring the 

signature of both parents on VFCPAs.

Finally, Defendants argue that VFCPAs are authorized by 

the Iowa Code. Defendants assert they must seek a VFCPA prior 

to seeking formal removal of the child (pursuant to Iowa Code

§ 232.78(1)(a)) and the DHS is empowered to pay for such 

placements (pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.35(1)(c)). Defendants 

further assert that pursuant to § 232.78(1)(a), placements may

occur for up to 90 days, or longer for mentally disabled children if 

reviewed by a board or a Court.

The court concluded Wilbur

has standing to seek equitable relief, in that she has a sufficient 

stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial 

resolution of that controversy. [Wilbur] is a proper party to state the 

equitable claims. [Wilbur] has made allegations that she and [I.N.] 

were victims of unconstitutional acts, which she seeks to have 

declared unconstitutional and enjoined, and her affidavit 

establishes that she has continuing contact with the State of Iowa 

and potentially could be at risk as to future potentially 

unconstitutional acts on the part of DHS. The Court accepts

[Wilbur]’s affidavit over the objection of Defendants because it 

directly relates to all of the equitable issues presented by the 

parties in this litigation. The affidavit is properly considered as part 

of Plaintiff’s post-trial filings because the affidavit is provided in 

support of the equitable issues the parties previously were ordered 

to address following trial of the other issues presented in this 

action. Further, there has been a full opportunity for Defendants to 

litigate all of the equitable issues, particularly given the multiple and 
21

repeated references to these issues in Plaintiff’s pleadings 

throughout the course of this matter.

The district court continued:

The Court finds [Wilbur] has met her burden of proof 

regarding the declaratory and injunctive relief she seeks, and the 

Court concludes that [Wilbur] is entitled to declaratory and

injunctive relief with respect to the equitable issues presented for 

the Court’s consideration. Wendy Rickman’s testimony establishes 

that the DHS has come to believe, as shown through the 

development of new policy, that there is a fundamental 

constitutional right that each parent has to the relationship with a 

child. Ms. Rickman’s testimony also established that the 2005 audit 

of DHS by the federal government triggered a process that began 

in 2006 in which DHS sought to restructure its practices towards a 

more “fulsome agreement” of all parties to a case. Ms. Rickman’s 

testimony shows that DHS has been aware for several years that 

its practice of obtaining only one signature on a [voluntary foster 

care placement agreement] VFCPA was a potential violation of the 

constitutional rights of a parent-child relationship. Further, DHS 

has gone on to change its practices and policies with regard to 

VFCPA. While the Heartland [v. Academy Community Church v.

Waddle, 427 F.3d 525, 530 (8th Cir. 2005),] case makes reference 

only to federal courts having authority to issue an injunction to 

prevent state officials from violating the Constitution without running 

afoul of the Eleventh Amendment, the Court finds it is a logical 

extension of the Heartland case to apply to state court cases, 

particularly where, as here, testimony of a DHS representative 

shows that the DHS was aware that its practice regarding VFCPAs 

potentially was in violation of the parent-child relationship. While 

DHS has relied on provisions of Iowa Code chapter 232 as 

statutory authority for VFCPAs, the Court concludes DHS’s reliance 

on Iowa Code § 232.78 et seq. does not provide authority for foster 

care placement in the context of child abuse investigations, as 

VFCPAs stem from Iowa Code § 232.175. 

Thus, the Court hereby declares that it is unconstitutional for 

the Iowa Department of Human Services to use Voluntary Foster 

Care Placement Agreements signed by only one parent when the 

use of such Agreements interferes with the custodial rights of the 

other parent, and it is unconstitutional for the Iowa Department of 

Human Services to use Voluntary Foster Care Placement 

Agreements signed by a non-custodial parent or a parent who has 

not yet established any custodial rights. Further, the Iowa 

Department of Human Services hereby is enjoined from engaging 

in such practices in the State of Iowa. An injunction is appropriate 

given that the issues involved in this case pertain specifically to the 
22

parent-child relationship, which is a fundamental liberty interest 

under the United States Constitution. Interference with this 

fundamental liberty interest may lead to invasion or threatened 

invasion of a right; to substantial injury and/or damages; and may 

cause irreparable damage.

Turning to Plaintiff’s request for relief regarding Safety Plans, 

the Court concludes that Ms. Rickman’s testimony establishes that 

DHS has both parents sign the Safety Plan because each parent 

has a constitutional right to the parent-child relationship. Ms. 

Rickman’s testimony also establishes that DHS has no authority to 

utilize Safety Plans signed by third parties, or to utilize Safety Plans 

that restrict access to a child by a parent who has not signed the 

Safety Plan.

Thus, the Court hereby declares that it is unconstitutional for 

the Iowa Department of Human Services to utilize Safety Plans that 

remove or keep a child from his or her usual and customary home, 

without the consent of the custodial parent; to utilize Safety Plans to 

prevent a parent from having physical contact with the child, without 

the consent of that parent; and to utilize Safety Plans with thirdparties/non-parents of the child. Further, the Iowa Department of

Human Services hereby is enjoined from engaging in such 

practices in the State of Iowa. The injunction is appropriate for the 

same reasons the Court found fit to establish injunctive relief with 

respect to the Voluntary Foster Care Placement Agreements.

The Court finds that the jury’s verdict in this case does not 

preclude the Court from entering equitable relief against the DHS. 

While the specific facts of Plaintiff’s case did not provide a basis for 

her to prevail on her legal claims, the Court views the equitable 

claims as a different matter because said claims specifically pertain 

to the policies and practices of the Iowa DHS, regardless of 

whether those policies and practices apply to Plaintiff or to any 

other parent with DHS involvement. As Plaintiff states in her 

Response to Defendants’ Brief on Equitable Relief, “the facts on 

which the jury may have based its verdict may have nothing to do 

with the constitutionality of the challenged practices and 

procedures.” See Response, p. 2. The Court’s ordering of 

declaratory and injunctive relief is intended to ensure that DHS 

does not continue with what it has admitted to be an 

unconstitutional practice. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is not

rendered moot by the DHS’s 2012 policy change regarding 

VFCPAs. Additionally, as Plaintiff points out, it does not appear the 

2012 policy change specifically incorporates the DHS’s position 

regarding Safety Plans.

The trial court assessed costs one-half to Wilbur and one-half to the director.
23

The court asked for briefs on “whether an award of attorney fees may be 

appropriate under these circumstances.” Wilbur requested attorney fees and 

expenses. The director objected on two grounds: (1) Wilbur was not a “prevailing 

party” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) even if she achieved some 

degree of success, the fees requested must be reduced to coincide with the 

limited success achieved. 

Attorney fees. The district court concluded Wilbur 

was successful in obtaining equitable relief against DHS, and 

without Plaintiff bringing her claims before the Court, it is unlikely 

that DHS would have voluntarily made the changes to the policies 

and practices that now have been enjoined by the Court. 

Regardless of the outcome of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, 

Plaintiff achieved a significant victory in obtaining the equitable 

relief order by the Court. The legal relationship between Plaintiff 

and DHS was altered, in that DHS can no longer engage in 

unconstitutional practices related to safety plans and . . . VRCPAs. 

Further, to the extent that any of Plaintiff’s children are again 

subject to DHS proceedings in Iowa, the fact that DHS has been 

enjoined from engaging in unconstitutional practices directly 

benefits Plaintiff. 

The court awarded Wilbur attorney fees and expenses to be paid by DHS (not 

LaFauce or the director) in the amounts of $8212.50 for attorney trial time, 

$65,616 for other attorney fees, and $7138 in expenses related to the “equitable 

issues” and the Martin Diaz Law Firm, and $17,990 in attorney fees and $7.84 in 

expenses for Natalie Cronk’s work prior to withdrawal. 

The director appeals the awards of declaratory and injunctive relief and 

attorney fees, and Wilbur cross-appeals the jury’s verdicts denying her monetary 

and punitive damages. Our supreme court consolidated the appeals, stayed the 

injunctive relief granted by the district court, and transferred the case to us. 
24

II. Scope and Standard of Review. 

We review constitutional claims de novo. Hensler v. City of Davenport, 

790 N.W.2d 569, 578 (Iowa 2010). “In doing so, we independently evaluate the 

totality of the circumstances.” Id. We are not bound by the district court’s

findings of fact. Id. We do, however, give deference to those findings because 

the district court had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id.

III. Discussion.

A. General principles.

We begin by acknowledging the constitutional rights of parents and 

children in familial association. 

The United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized that 

a parent’s “care, custody, and control” of a child is a fundamental 

liberty interest given the greatest possible protection. Troxel v.

Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66 (2000) (plurality opinion); Stanley v.

Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651–52 (1972). A parent’s interest in 

preserving family relationships is best protected by the Due 

Process Clause. Alsager v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 406 F. Supp. 10, 21–22 

(S.D. Iowa 1975), aff’d in part, 545 F.2d 1137 (8th Cir. 1976).

The Supreme Court has also recognized that a parent’s right 

to the care and custody of a child is reciprocated by the child’s 

liberty interest in familial association, likewise protected by the Due 

Process Clause. See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256 (1983) 

(noting reciprocal nature of interest); Moore v. City of East 

Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503–05 (1977) (noting the private realm 

of family relationships); Wallis [v. Spencer], 202 F.3d [1126,] 1136

[(9th Cir. 1999)] (“Parents and children have a well-elaborated 

constitutional right to live together without governmental 

interference.”).

F.K. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 630 N.W.2d 801, 808 (Iowa 2001); see also In re J.L., 779 

N.W.2d 481, 489 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (“A child’s liberty interest in familial 

association is protected by the Due Process Clause and the State may only 

interfere with this liberty interest after providing the children due process of law.”). 
25

Those rights, however, are not absolute. In re K.M., 653 N.W.2d 602, 608 

(Iowa 2002); see also Thomason v. SCAN Volunteer Servs., Inc., 85 F.3d 1365, 

1371 (8th Cir. 1996).

“[T]the liberty interest in familial relations is limited by the 

compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor 

children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is 

considered necessary as against the parents themselves.”

Moreover, as the First Circuit has correctly noted, “[t]he right to 

family integrity clearly does not include a constitutional right to be 

free from child abuse investigations.”

Thomason, 85 F.3d at 1371 (citations omitted); see also F.K., 630 N.W.2d at 809 

(stating the State “bears the heavy responsibility of assur[ing] that every child 

within its borders receives proper care and treatment” and “[p]rompt attention to 

the duty is demanded when the health or safety of the child is at risk” (citations

omitted)).

The jury rejected Wilbur’s claims that LaFauce and the director violated 

her or I.N.’s procedural or substantive due process rights and I.N.’s Fourth 

Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the district court granted injunctive relief 

“intend[ing] to ensure that DHS does not continue with what it has admitted to be 

an unconstitutional practice.”

14

 

B. Director’s appeal. Here, the district court granted declaratory and 

injunctive relief upon its finding Wilbur “potentially could be at risk as to future 

potentially unconstitutional acts on the part of DHS.” The director argues that 

 

14 We have reviewed this record and cannot conclude there exists an “admitted” 

unconstitutional practice. As best we can discern, the district court is referring to Ms. 

Rickman’s testimony, the sum and substance of which was that DHS policy with respect 

to parental signatures on voluntary foster care agreements has changed as a result of 

“moving toward more fulsome agreement of all parties in a case over a period of time.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel asked, “And did that grow out of a belief that there was a fundamental 

constitutional right that each had to the relationship with the child?” Ms. Rickman 

answered, “Yes.” This is not an admission of an unconstitutional practice. 
26

Wilbur lacks standing on the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and 

alternatively, the standards for relief have not been met. We agree. 

Here, Wilbur sought to have certain practices of the Iowa DHS declared 

unconstitutional and enjoined from future use.15 To obtain declaratory relief, “[a]

plaintiff must (1) have a specific personal or legal interest in the litigation and 

(2) be injuriously affected.” Godfrey v. State, 752 N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2008)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “To satisfy the first element, we 

require the litigant to allege some type of injury different from the population in 

general. To satisfy the second element, the injury cannot be ‘conjectural’ or 

‘hypothetical,’ but must be ‘concrete’ and ‘actual or imminent.’” Hawkeye 

Foodservice Dist., Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600, 606 (Iowa 

2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The jury found that Wilbur’s procedural and substantive due process rights 

and I.N.’s procedural and substantive due process and Fourth Amendment rights 

had not been violated.16 Nonetheless, the district court—relying upon Wilbur’s 

post-trial affidavit—concluded Wilbur, who asserted she lived in Texas, had 

standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief because of her “continuing 

contact with the State of Iowa” and that she “potentially could be at risk as to 

future potentially unconstitutional acts on the part of DHS.”

17

 This is not sufficient 

to establish a legal interest in her claims for injunctive relief. 

 

15 As already noted above, the director objected to any assertions regarding safety plans 

because such claims were not included in the petition or amended petition. 

16 We will address Wilbur’s challenge to the jury findings later in this opinion.

17 Wilbur asserts in her appeal brief that standing was not properly raised as an issue 

and that “the word ‘standing’ when complaining about the relief sought” was not used 

prior to trial. The record belies this claim. The defendants asserted Wilbur lacked 

standing in their answer and on numerous occasions thereafter. 
27

Even considering Wilbur’s post-trial affidavit, her claim that she may be in 

Iowa and perhaps subject to DHS action in the future is no different than the 

general public, and does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that 

she would again be subject to the DHS practices of which she complains. 

Godfrey, 752 N.W.2d at 423. 

This court discussed the injury element of standing in Banks v. Iowa

Department of Public Safety, No. 10-0683, 2010 WL 4140456, at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Oct. 20, 2010). There, the appellant sought to “vindicate a public interest”

by challenging allegedly illegal governmental action. Banks, 2010 WL 4140456, 

at *3; see Godfrey, 752 N.W.2d at 420 (concluding “cases involving actions by 

private persons to enforce public rights may be brought under the personalinterest alternative to the first element” where there is a specific personal or legal 

interest in the litigation). We observed that under Godfrey the challenger must 

allege some type of injury different from the population in general. Banks, 2010 

WL 4140456, at *3. We quoted Alons v. Iowa District Court, 698 N.W.2d 858, 

867-68 (Iowa 2005):

[W]hen the asserted harm is a “generalized grievance” shared in 

substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that 

harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. 

Thus,

a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance 

about government—claiming only harm to his and 

every citizen’s interest in proper application of the 

Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more 

directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the 

public at large—does not provide a basis for standing.

 

On appeal, Wilbur states only, “the fathers of I.N. and S.F., both of whom live in 

the State of Iowa, could approach DHS and ‘consent’ to remove a child in Iowa during a 

visit without [her] consent. She has standing.” 
28

The claimed nonobservance of the law, “standing alone,” affects 

only the generalized interest of all citizens, and such an injury is 

abstract in nature, which is not sufficient for standing.

Id. at *3 (citations omitted). In Banks, we found the appellant’s past injury was 

not sufficient to establish standing to challenge the government’s actions through 

declaratory action. Id. at *4. Wilbur’s interest to prevent possible future injury 

rises no higher than any other member of the general public. We therefore 

conclude Wilbur has no standing to challenge DHS’s actions by declaratory 

action. 

Our self-imposed standing inquiry has two distinct prongs, 

each of which a plaintiff must satisfy to proceed with a claim. “Our 

cases have determined that a complaining party must (1) have a 

specific personal or legal interest in the litigation and (2) be 

injuriously affected.” Citizens for Responsible Choices v. City of 

Shenandoah, 686 N.W.2d 470, 475 (Iowa 2004); see also Alons v.

Iowa Dist. Ct., 698 N.W.2d 858, 869 (Iowa 2005). This inquiry is 

separate from, and precedes, the merits of a case. See Alons, 698 

N.W.2d at 864 (“Even if the claim could be meritorious, the court 

will not hear the claim if the party bringing it lacks standing.”).

Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 452 (Iowa 2013). 

We have recognized a public-policy exception where certain questions of 

great public importance may provide the necessary interest for the court to 

intervene. Godfrey, 752 N.W.2d at 425. However, “we become especially 

hesitant to act when asked to resolve disputes that require us to decide whether 

an act taken by one of the other branches of government was unconstitutional.” 

Id. at 427. “Without an individual injury by the complainant under such 

circumstances, we risk assuming ‘a position of authority’ over the acts of another 

branch of government. We must avoid such a result.” Id. (quoting Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 574 (1992)). 
29

We have often noted that “[a]n injunction is an extraordinary 

remedy which should be granted with caution and only when clearly 

required to avoid irreparable damage.” The party seeking the 

injunction must establish: (1) an invasion or threatened invasion of 

a right; (2) that substantial injury or damages will result unless the 

request for an injunction is granted; and (3) that there is no 

adequate legal remedy available. When considering the 

appropriateness of an injunction “the court should carefully weigh 

the relative hardship which would be suffered by the enjoined party 

upon awarding injunctive relief.”

Sear v. Clayton Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 590 N.W.2d 512, 515 (Iowa 

1999) (citations omitted); see also City of Okoboji v. Parks, 830 N.W.2d 300, 309 

(Iowa 2013) (stating same requirements for injunction). We agree with the 

director’s contention Wilbur has not established the necessary elements for 

obtaining injunctive relief. 

The district court based its declaratory relief on Iowa Rule of Civil 

Procedure 1.1101, which provides, “Courts of record within their respective 

jurisdictions shall declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not 

further relief is or could be claimed.” The district court also cited Bormann v.

Board of Supervisors, 584 N.W.2d 309, 312-13 (Iowa 1998) (discussing Iowa 

Rule of Civil Procedure 261 (now rule 1.1101)). Bormann states: “The purpose 

of a declaratory judgment is to determine rights in advance. The essential 

difference between such an action and the usual action is that no actual wrong 

need have been committed or loss incurred to sustain declaratory judgment 

relief.” 584 N.W.2d at 312-31. Yet, Bormann emphasizes, “there must be no 

uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the right asserted will be invaded.” Id.

at 313 (emphasis added). Wilbur makes no showing of a certainty her custodial 

rights will be invaded by the asserted claims of unconstitutional conduct by DHS.
30

The district court declared

it is unconstitutional for the Iowa Department of Human Services to 

use Voluntary Foster Care Placement Agreements signed by only 

one parent when the use of such Agreements interferes with the 

custodial rights of the other parent, and it is unconstitutional for the 

Iowa Department of Human Services to use Voluntary Foster Care 

Placement Agreements signed by a non-custodial parent or a 

parent who has not yet established any custodial rights. 

The trial court’s declarations treat a “custodial” parent’s rights as absolute. They 

are not. See K.M., 653 N.W.2d at 608.

Much of Wilbur’s arguments are based upon her contention that she 

proved her claims of violations of constitutional rights as a matter of law. Thus, 

she asserts the district court could appropriately enter declaratory and injunctive 

relief. She cites Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 427 F.3d 

525, 530 (8th Cir. 2005), wherein the Eighth Circuit stated: “An injunction to 

prevent [a state officer] from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an 

interference with the discretion of an officer.” Waddle, 427 F.3d at 530. We, 

therefore, turn to her cross-appeal.

C. Cross Appeal. Wilbur filed post-trial motions seeking judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial. She also contends on appeal 

that the trial court improperly instructed the jury. 

Wilbur argues Nino “could not provide valid consent” for LaFauce to place 

I.N. outside of Wilbur’s care. She relies on Iowa Code section 600B.40, which 

she asserts not only gives her sole custody but negates Nino’s rights to the child. 

We believe Wilbur reads the provision too broadly. 

Iowa Code section 600B.40 provides, 
31

The mother of a child born out of wedlock whose paternity 

has not been acknowledged and who has not been adopted has 

sole custody of the child unless the court orders otherwise. If a 

judgment of paternity is entered, the father may petition for rights of 

visitation or custody in the same paternity action or in an equity 

proceeding separate from any action to establish paternity.

(Emphasis added.)

It has been said that paternity is acknowledged

[i]f in his intercourse with neighbors, associates, and friends he 

makes no attempt to conceal the relationship he bears to the child, 

but acknowledges it openly whenever any reference to the subject 

is made, and this recognition is so often repeated to different 

people as to evince his willingness that all who care to know the 

truth may understand that he admits himself the father of the child, 

we regard it as sufficiently general for the purposes of the statutory 

rule, although many of his acquaintances may never have heard 

him mention the matter.

In re Estate of Wise, 221 N.W. 567, 568 (Iowa 1928). 

There is no dispute Nino is the child’s biological father and he openly 

acknowledged his paternity of the child. Wilbur agreed to allow Nino to exercise 

visitation with I.N. the weekend of November 6 to 8. Wilbur at the time was in 

Texas. While the child was in Nino’s care and custody, and while Wilbur was out 

of state, concerns about possible sexual abuse arose. Under these 

circumstances, we are not willing to rule as a matter of law that a biological 

parent cannot consent to placing the child in a safe setting such as voluntary 

foster care until investigation could be completed. We find no error in the trial 

court’s allowing the jury to consider whether a “parent” consented to voluntary 

placement in foster care.

Our standard of review on motions JNOV was recently summarized by our 

supreme court:
32

We review a ruling denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding 

the verdict for correction of errors at law. Royal Indem. Co. v.

Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 786 N.W.2d 839, 846 (Iowa 2010). On 

review, we “determine whether sufficient evidence existed to justify 

submitting the case to the jury at the conclusion of the trial.” Lee v.

State, 815 N.W.2d 731, 736 (Iowa 2012). To justify submitting the 

case to the jury, substantial evidence must support each element of 

the plaintiff’s claim. Van Sickle Constr. Co. v. Wachovia 

Commercial Mortg., Inc., 783 N.W.2d 684, 687 (Iowa 2010). 

“Evidence is substantial when reasonable minds would accept the 

evidence as adequate to reach the same findings.” Doe v. Cent.

Iowa Health Sys., 766 N.W.2d 787, 790 (Iowa 2009). We view “the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. 

Garr v. City of Ottumwa, 846 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Iowa 2014).

“To prevail under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that one of his or her 

federal rights has been violated.” Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709, 717 (8th Cir. 

2005). Wilbur contends the district court erred in instructing the jury her 

substantive due process claim required a finding by the jury that “actions of Paul 

LaFauce were so egregious as to shock the conscience.” She contends there is 

a dispute among the federal circuit courts as to the proper standard. However, 

we agree with the trial court that the Eighth Circuit, which includes Iowa, requires 

such a showing. See Schmidt v. Des Moines Pub. Schools, 655 F.3d 811, 816 

(8th Cir. 2011) (“To establish a violation [of substantive due process], a plaintiff 

‘must demonstrate both that the official’s conduct was conscience-shocking, and

that the official violated one or more fundamental rights that are deeply rooted in 

this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, 

such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’”

(underlining added)). 

With respect to whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings, 

we adopt the district court’s ruling:
33

There was substantial evidence presented at trial that [I.N.]

suffered little to no long term harm. While [I.N.] spent two or three 

days in foster care and another week with [Nino]’s sister, Jana 

Brown’s testimony provided substantial evidence that [I.N.] was not 

subject to abuse during this time period and did not suffer 

significant medical trauma. [Wilbur] was not in Iowa when the 

process of placing [I.N.] in foster care and with [Nino]’s sister 

began, and it is unclear exactly when [Wilbur] would have returned 

had these events not occurred. DHS is charged with protecting 

children within Iowa. When all of the facts are considered, there 

was substantial evidence presented at trial for the jury to conclude 

that there was no “shock the conscience” type harm in this case.

While there undoubtedly was anxiety and stress caused by the 

situation, there was little to no evidence that there was any long 

term effect that was harmful to [I.N.] Plaintiff’s Motion should be 

denied as to the substantive due process claims.

Turning to the procedural due process claims, the Court 

finds there was substantial evidence presented at trial that Mr. 

LaFauce was investigating a complex case involving separated 

parents and other relative caretakers in a multi-county and multistate context, all while considering the implications of [Nino]’s 

placement on the Sex Offender Registry. [Nino]’s testimony 

regarding [I.N.]’s condition at the time he picked her up for the 

weekend visit, coupled with the fact that blood was found in her 

underpants, is substantial evidence to support Mr. LaFauce’s 

reasonable suspicion of child abuse, such that it was reasonable for 

Mr. LaFauce to monitor and investigate the situation. The consent 

process undertaken by Mr. LaFauce was not ideal, but given the 

complexity of the circumstances, Mr. LaFauce obtaining written 

consent from [Nino] for the placement of [I.N.] into foster care was 

an exercise of the State’s legitimate interest in protecting children in 

emergency situations. Further, there was substantial evidence that 

[Wilbur] consented to placement of [I.N.] with Ruby. Plaintiff’s 

Motion should be denied as to the procedural due process claims.

With respect to the claim of a violation of I.N.’s Fourth Amendment rights, 

the district court stated:

[T]here was substantial evidence presented at trial to support a

finding that [I.N.] did not suffer a violation of her right to privacy.

[I.N.] was placed into foster care and then into her aunt’s home 

based on a [voluntary foster care placement agreement] obtained 

by Mr. LaFauce. If there was a seizure, there is substantial 

evidence that the seizure was reasonable due to the consent

provided by [Nino] and because of the safety concerns presented 

by [I.N.]’s physical condition when she arrived at [Nino]’s parents’
34

home for the weekend visit, as well as the continuing investigation 

of the abuse and neglect allegations and [Wilbur]’s presence out of 

state. Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied as to [I.N.]’s right to 

privacy claim. 

We affirm on the cross-appeal.

D. Attorney fees for prevailing party. The trial court awarded Wilbur 

attorney fee’s fees as a “prevailing party.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (allowing “[i]n 

any action or proceeding to enforce” the provisions of § 1983 “the court, in its 

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a 

reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs”). Because we have reversed the 

declaratory and injunctive relief upon which the trial court based the award of 

attorney fees and costs, we reverse the award of attorney fees and costs. 

REVERSED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.

Doyle, J., concurs; McDonald, J., concurs specially.
35

MCDONALD, Judge. (concurring specially)

I concur in the majority’s resolution of the parties’ respective appeals. I 

write separately to note our adoption of the shock-the-conscience standard, ante

at 32, is correct on the merits and not required merely because the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has adopted the standard. As explained 

by Justice Thomas:

The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, 

but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law 

requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to 

a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a 

state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative 

than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial 

court is located. An Arkansas trial court is bound by this Court’s 

(and by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s and Arkansas Court of 

Appeals’) interpretation of federal law, but if it follows the Eighth 

Circuit’s interpretation of federal law, it does so only because it 

chooses to and not because it must.

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 376 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring).