Opinion ID: 2227334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requested testimony of victim at agency hearing.

Text: Prior to the September 13, 1995, hearing, the ALJ sustained the DHS's motion to quash subpoenas issued for Mauk's daughter L.M. and for his son J.M., based on the ALJ's conclusion that L.M.'s memory of the alleged incident that occurred seven years previously, and when she was three and one-half years old, would not be reliable. The ALJ also commented that administrative hearings are stressful and that [t]o subject children to such a hearing when their testimony would provide minimal information would not be in their best interests. Mauk argues that the ALJ's action in quashing the subpoenas deprived him of his right to due process and a fair hearing guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable statutory and agency rules.
Mauk's evidentiary hearing before the ALJ, provided by Iowa Code section 235A.19(2), was a contested case proceeding. See Bernau v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 580 N.W.2d 757, 766 (Iowa 1998) (stating the rule that a hearing is a contested case if the constitution or a statute requires an evidentiary hearing). Accordingly, the hearing was governed by the procedural rules listed in Iowa Code sections 17A.12 and 17A.13. Specifically, Mauk was entitled to present evidence and argument on all issues involved, see Iowa Code § 17A.12(4); Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-7.13(2) (regarding conduct of administrative hearing; party shall have right to introduce any evidence on points at issue); Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-7.13(3) (stating that party shall have opportunity to respond and present evidence and arguments on all issues involved), and had the right to cause subpoenas to be issued, see Iowa Code § 17A.13(1) (Agency subpoenas shall be issued to a party on request.); Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-7.12 (departmental subpoenas shall be issued to a party upon request). Additionally, Mauk had the same rights to discovery as applicable to civil actions. See Iowa Code § 17A.13(1) (Discovery procedures applicable to civil actions are available to all parties in contested cases before an agency.); accord Dunlavey v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845, 858 (Iowa 1995). These procedural rules are in place to ensure that a party to an administrative hearing is afforded due process, i.e., that the party is given adequate notice and an opportunity to defend concerning the action of an agency. See Alfredo v. Iowa Racing & Gaming Comm'n, 555 N.W.2d 827, 833 (Iowa 1996).
We concluded in In re E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d 243, 246 (Iowa 1998), that a father's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, see U.S. Const. amend. VI, did not apply to a civil child in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding and thus, the father had no constitutional right to call his children as witnesses at a hearing concerning the State's motion for a no contact order against the father. See also In re L.K.S., 451 N.W.2d 819, 822 (Iowa 1990) (holding there is no Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in CINA proceedings). We further concluded that the trial court had discretion to determine that a child need not be called as a witness when the best interests of the child militated against use of the child's testimony in juvenile court. E.H. III, 578 N.W.2d at 246. Following our reasoning in E.H. III, Mauk did not have a constitutional Sixth Amendment right to confront L.M. or to call her as a witness in the hearing before the ALJ. Accordingly, Mauk's constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses was not infringed. We reach a different result, however, with respect to whether the ALJ's decision, that causing L.M. and J.M. to testify during the agency hearing would not be in their best interests, is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ quashed the subpoenas for Mauk's children, in part, based on its finding that [t]o subject [the] children to such a hearing when their testimony would provide minimal information would not be in their best interests. In other words, the ALJ concluded that Mauk was not entitled to exercise his right under statutory and agency rule provisions to call witnesses, based on the ALJ's finding that causing the children to testify would not be in their best interests. Upon our review, we conclude that substantial evidence does not exist in the record in this case to support the ALJ's ruling quashing the subpoenas. First, the ALJ's ruling, which was adopted by the DHS, does not cite specific evidence in the record by any of the professionals who examined L.M. as support for the conclusion that causing L.M. to testify would not be in her best interests or would otherwise be traumatic. More importantly, the ALJ did not consider L.M.'s current psychological development at the time of the hearing in 1995, which was held seven years after the alleged incident occurred. Instead, the ALJ simply commented in general about the stress children may experience in testifying in such situations. Additionally, the extent of L.M.'s memory of the alleged incident would best be determined by calling her to testify, rather than by assuming what she remembered and what she did not. For these reasons, J.M. also should be allowed to testify, although it appears he may have little knowledge of the alleged incident. We therefore conclude that the ALJ's reason for quashing the subpoenas is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We also find no other reason for the ALJ's refusal to allow Mauk to exercise his right under statutory and agency rule provisions to call witnesses to testify at the evidentiary, contested case hearing. Due to the above conclusions, we need not address whether Mauk's right to constitutional due process under the Fourteenth Amendment has been infringed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court upholding the agency's ruling on this issue. Because we conclude that Mauk should be allowed to call L.M. and J.M. to testify concerning the alleged incident, we also believe that Mauk's assignment of error concerning his request to admit into evidence a videotape of his interview with his children is moot.