Court Opinion

ID: 9660873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:23:05.358095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:22.962678
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
This represents the third time the facts of this case have been before us. Kathleen A. Kruse is the natural mother of a young female child. It is Kathleen’s position the child’s father, her former husband, sexually abused the child. The child currently is in her father’s care and Kathleen has restricted visitation rights. Kathleen believes in the proceedings that have resulted in the child being placed in her father’s care, the courts have erroneously concluded the child was not sexually abused by her father. Kathleen also believes a finding the child’s father sexually abused her should be made in this proceeding. This proceeding seeks to have the Iowa Department of Human Services determine to be founded a report by Kathleen that the child was sexually abused.
The Department and the trial court dismissed Kathleen’s action finding they were precluded from relitigating the issue of whether the child’s father had committed sexual abuse by a finding in a child in need of assistance proceeding that he had not. The majority of this court has dismissed Kathleen’s appeal. The reason the majority finds to support its decision is there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Because Kathleen is not the alleged abuser, the majority have held she has no standing to challenge the Department’s decision.
I do not agree with the majority that Kathleen has no right to ask for a redeter-mination and hearing. I also do not agree with the trial court that the child in need of assistance proceeding holding was issue preclusion in this case. I am of the opinion Kathleen had standing to ask for a redeter-mination and I would remand to the agency for that purpose. The issue before us is only whether there should be a hearing. I do not in dissenting render any opinion as to what I feel the results of the hearing on remand should be.
*461I find it necessary to comment on certain things that have occurred while the three cases have been pending before us. Kathleen has represented herself during many of the proceedings. In her brief filed in this court on this case there are numerous instances where she has not accurately set out the facts and has not been credible. Furthermore, she has used this form to make charges that the attorney for the child, The Iowa Department of Human Services, the Iowa Attorney General, certain doctors and medical personnel who examined her child, and certain judges in this state are not concerned about children and child abuse. The record made in this case clearly establishes there is no legitimate basis for Kathleen's allegations that these agencies and persons are not concerned about child abuse. While these people and agencies have disagreed with Kathleen that her former husband sexually abused the child and/or there should be another hearing, the record before us clearly causes me to find The Department of Human Services, the attorney for the child, the Iowa Attorney General, and the doctors and medical personnel examining the child have exhibited substantial concern for the child and have consciously handled their responsibilities and have considered the best interest of the child at every juncture.
Furthermore, while the other two judges on this panel do not agree with me that there should be another hearing, I am convinced, in arriving at their decision, they have been very mindful of their responsibility to protect the best interest of this child. While I disagree with their interpretation of the law on this issue, I recognize there is support for their position as there is support for mine.
Kathleen or her supporters have papered this court with unrequested and inaccurate letters and briefs. Kathleen has also attempted to put political pressure on this court. Because the original case was a child in need of assistance case, the facts of the case were confidential and those seeking to influence our decision have not had the access we did to the facts of the case.
As judges, our obligations are to decide cases only on the facts in the record before us. In deciding this case, I have followed my obligation as have, I am sure, my fellow judges. I have given no consideration to these outside-the-record attempts to influence my decision. If I had given consideration to these attempts from outside sources to influence me, I would have violated my obligation as a judge and I would not have been fair to Kathleen’s former spouse or the State of Iowa who are adverse to her position in this court. Kathleen’s former husband and the State of Iowa have followed the rules and made no outside attempts to influence this court.
I agree with Kathleen that there should be a hearing; not because of all the pressures, but because I interpret the law as supporting her position.
I do not agree with the majority that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The majority supports its conclusion by finding the statute only allows the alleged perpetrator of the abuse to challenge a founded or unfounded report.
While the statute could have been written to provide more direction on this issue, I do not agree that person as provided for in Iowa Code section 235A.19 means only that person who is the subject of the investigation. It is my feeling had the legislature so intended, it could have easily and clearly limited that section. Furthermore, I do not believe there is any basis to arrive at this narrow definition.
I agree with Kathleen’s challenge to the Department and the trial court’s determination that issue preclusion applies and that the holding in the child in need of assistance proceedings that the child’s father did not abuse the child precludes relit-igation of that issue in this proceeding.
In the child in need of assistance proceeding, the charges had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence; in this case, the burden is only by the preponderance.
Issue preclusion is a bar to further litigation of a specific issue. Harrison v. State Bank of Bussey, 440 N.W.2d 398, 399 (Iowa App.1989). The Department’s position is issue preclusion applies because the *462court determined in the child in need of assistance proceeding that the child was not sexually abused by her father.
I agree with the Department that the issue was litigated in the child in need of assistance proceeding and determined by a valid and final judgment. This, however, does not decide the issue. There are circumstances when issue preclusion does not apply. See Bagley v. Hughes A. Bagley, Inc., 465 N.W.2d 551, 553 (Iowa App.1990). Relitigation of an issue is not necessarily precluded where the burden of persuasion with respect to the issue in the initial action is a significantly heavier burden than in the first action. See Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121, 124-125 (Iowa 1981) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 68.1(d) (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1977).
In State v. One Certain Conveyance, 1973 Kenworth Semi-Tractor, 316 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa 1982), the court held the government in a subsequent court action should not be precluded from attempting to prove an issue by a preponderance of the evidence merely because it did not sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and the litigation of the issue should not be given preclusive effect. Applying the dictates of One Certain Conveyance, I find issue preclusion does not apply-
I would remand to the agency for a hearing.