IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 0664 Filed May 3, 2017

JOHN DOE , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES , Respondent

- Appell ee

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey L. Poulson , Judge.

The appellant seeks review of the finding he committed child abuse and the placement of his name on the ch ild abuse registry. AFFIRMED.

Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindman, Hisey & Daane , Sioux City , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and David M. Van Compernolle, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee State

.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., McDonald, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*

* Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2017).2

GOODHUE, Senior Judge. John Doe 1 appeals from the district court decision upholding a ruling entered by the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) finding Doe committed child abuse and placing his name on the Iowa Child Abuse Registry.
I. Facts and Proceedings Doe came to the attention of the DHS when a fourteen

- year - old child claimed Doe had sexually abused her in December 2013

. During an interview
with a DHS child protective worker , t he child reported two separate incidents of inappropriate contact between herself and Doe. T he first occurred outside of the United States. During that incident, t he child was operating a four

- w heel vehicle when Doe

— who was sitting behind h er
— stated she had nice breasts , pressed his private part against her back or buttocks , and touched her breasts. Both were fully clothed at the time. During the second instance, which occurred in Iowa, Doe cha sed the child to a bed , held her down , and tried to separate her legs. During a forensic interview , the child substantiated what she had told the DHS worker but added that Doe asked her to touch his “private part” during one of the events. Doe denied any sexual abuse had occurred

. On December 16, 2014, t he DHS issued a child protective assessment
summary confirm ing that Doe had committed sexual abuse in the third degree , and it placed Doe’s name on the c hild a buse r egistry. At the DHS worker ’s request , the State filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition based on the allegations of sexual abuse by Doe and her mother’s failure to protect the child

.

1 We shall refer to the appellant as John Doe for confidentiality purposes as required by Iowa Court Rule 21.25.3

T he parties stipulated to the CINA adjudication at the February 6, 2015 adjudicatory hearing

. On February 7, 2015 , Doe appealed the DHS’s finding he committed child abuse and the placement of his name on the child abuse registry. T he DHS later changed the child protective service assessment summary to confirm Doe committed sexual abuse, lasciviou s acts with a child , but listed the allegation of third

- degree sexual abuse a s “ not confirmed. ” Based on the finding Doe committed sexual a buse , lascivious acts with a child, Doe’s name remained on the child abuse registry

. An administrative law judge (A LJ) heard Doe’s appeal of the DHS action

o n July 7, 2015. In the proposed decision , the ALJ affirmed the placement of Doe’s name on the c hild a buse r egistry. Doe requested a review , and on review , the DHS adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision. Doe filed a petition for judicial review , and the district court affirmed the decision of the DHS. Doe has appealed contending: (1) the DHS lacks subject matter jurisdiction to investigate the incident that occurred outside the country , (2) there is insufficient e vidence to support the finding that Doe was the child ’s caretaker at the time of either of the alleged incidents , and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that Doe committed sexual abuse.
II. Preservation of Error As to each claim of e rror the State acknowledges the claim was raised befor e the district court and acknowledge s error has been preserved.4

III. Jurisdiction
A. Standard of Review A review of a district court’s decision on judicial review o r jurisdiction issues is for errors of law. H e artland Express v. Gardner , 675 N.W.2d 259, 262 (Iowa 2003).
B. Discussion Doe contends that Iowa has no jurisdiction over one of the incident s because it occurred in another country

. Iowa Code section 232.72 ( 2014) requires that a report of child abuse be transmitted to the county where the child resides. The county of residency is to proceed as required by Iowa Code section 232.71B. Although jurisdiction for criminal acts is generally where the act t ook place , see Iowa Code § 803.2(1), our statutes concerning child abuse assessment and reporting are concerned with the protection of the child , see id. § 232.67 ( stating the legislative purpose of these statutes is to protect children in this state from abuse)

. I t logically follows that report s of child abuse would be handled in the child’s county of residence , and the statute so provides. See id. § 232.71B. Doe does not dispute that the child is a resident of Sioux County

. Doe cites Staggs v. Iowa Department of Human Services, No. 1 4

- 0229,
20 1 5 WL 2406769 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. Ap p

. May 20, 2015) , for his contention that Iowa has no jurisdiction. But in that case, neither the child nor the perpetrator resided in Iowa at the time of the incident. Staggs , 2015 WL 2406769, at *3

. Doe and the child were both residents of Iowa at the time of the sexual abuse

.5

The DHS ha d jurisdiction to enter Doe’s name on the child abuse registry even if the sexual abu s e had t aken place outside of the country

. IV. Sufficienc y of the Evidence
A. Standard of Review We accord limited deference to an agency’s interpretation of the law , but the agency’s finding s of fact are binding on an appellate court if supported by substantial evidence when viewing the record as a whole. Mauk v. Iowa Dep ’ t of Human Servs

. , 617 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa 2000) . Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable person would find it adequate to reach a conclusion . Id

. B. Evidence of Caretaker Status
A “ person responsible for the care of a child ” inclu des “[ a ] ny person providing care for a child , but with whom the child does not reside , without reference to the duration of the care. ” Iowa Code § 232.68(8)(d). The ALJ found that within the meaning of the statute , Doe had assumed care of the child

. Wit h regard to the first incident, there is no indication any other adult was on the four

wheel vehicle with Doe or even near the ir vicinity. The second incident took place in Doe’s home while he was attempting to control or discipline the child

. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Doe was responsible for the child ’s

care at the time of both incidents. C. Evidence of Sexual Abuse Doe was found to have committed an act of child abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8(1)(d) by ask ing the child to touch his “private part

. ” After reviewing the child’s forensic interview, both t he ALJ and district court found the child to be credible in her account of the two incidents of sexual abuse; both6

found Doe ’s denial was not credible

. The A LJ found Doe solicited the touching of his penis for the purpose of arousing and satisfying his sexual desires. The finding is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn absent any other evidence. The child was adjudicated a CINA base d on Doe’s sexual abuse. Under Iowa Code section 235A

. 19(3)(d) , the CINA adjudication in itself may be considered determinative as to the placement of Doe’s name on the c hild a buse

r egistry. Accordingly, we affirm the placement of Doe ’ s name on the child abus e registry.
AFFIRMED.