In the Interest of L.G., K.G., and N.G., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1555
Filed March 19, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., K.G., and N.G.,
Minor Children,

D.G., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.

A father appeals the adjudication of his three daughters as children in need

of assistance. AFFIRMED.

Steven W. Stickle of Stickle Law Firm, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant

father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

G. Brian Weiler, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney for minor children.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

This appeal concerns three female children, L.G., born in 2008, and twins

N.G. and K.G., born in 2010. The father appeals their adjudication as children in

need of assistance (CINA) and claims the district court “improperly admitted both

documentary and testimonial evidence in contravention of the applicable rules of

evidence regarding admissibility.” We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This family first came to the attention of the Iowa Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) in November 2021 upon reports that the father was

sexually abusing the children. HHS issued founded reports naming the father as

the perpetrator of second-degree sexual abuse against the children, and a police

report was filed.1 The father agreed to stay elsewhere during the investigation,

and a safety plan was created in June 2022 that formally separated the children

from the father. In July, “because the parents were not following the safety plan,”

the HHS caseworker discussed a guardianship with Misty, who was related to the

mother “through marriage” and had historically “been a good support for the girls,

as well as for [the mother].” The children moved in full-time with Misty. In August,

the parents agreed to temporary guardianship with Misty, effective until August

2023. HHS closed its case in September 2022.

One year later, in September 2023, the family again came to the attention

of HHS when HHS received reports that Misty was no longer able to take the

children to medical appointments because the guardianship had lapsed and the

1 It does not appear that criminal charges were filed against the father.
3

parents refused to authorize her to allow the children to get medical care. 2 The

mother expressed she wanted the children returned to her custody and that Misty

refused to “give her kids back.” The mother refused to enter a safety plan for the

children’s return to her custody. The father was still in the family home. In

November 2023, the State petitioned the court to adjudicate L.G., K.G., and N.G.

as CINA.

After several continuances, an adjudication hearing took place in July 2024.

The HHS case manager testified about the circumstances of the family’s prior

involvement with HHS in 2021 and 2022. A second HHS caseworker testified

about his involvement with the family. That caseworker discussed the CINA

assessment he submitted to the court, raising two issues: medical care for the

children and the safety of the children if returned to the parents’ home in light of

the “prior founded assessment for sexual abuse.” The caseworker acknowledged

the mother had agreed to “take the necessary steps to allow Misty to get the

children to medical appointments” and, to his knowledge, “the medical concern has

been alleviated.” Yet the second issue remained because of the fact the mother

“wants the children returned to her care” despite the father still residing in the

home.

The caseworker acknowledged the initial safety plan and the guardianship

had expired and the father “has been trying to honor [HHS]’s concerns regarding

private contact with any of the three children.” When asked why reunification could

not take place immediately, the caseworker responded, “I would like to see the

2 K.G. and N.G. both require specialized medical care (K.G. from a pediatric
pulmonologist and N.G. from a leg specialist).
4

girls’ needs put first, the safety of the girls put first, and they are experiencing

concern about loving their mother, being with their mother, but their father being in

the home, given what they went through in the past, as reported by them.” The

caseworker opined the children were at risk of adjudicatory harm “[b]ecause of a

founded report that we have, and that those concerns, in my opinion, have not

been addressed from that founded report.” He also stated, “They have told me

directly that they love their parents, but because of what happened in the past,

they would struggle with being in the home with their father.” The mother did not

resist adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.96A(2), (3)(a), and 3(b) (2024).

The father resisted adjudication.

The court granted the State’s request to adjudicate the children as CINA

under section 232.96A(3)(a) and (4). The court further found “[r]eturning the

children to the home of [the parents] is not in their best interests” and “[k]eeping

the children in the home of Misty . . . , the Suitable Other the kids know well, is the

least restrictive placement for the children at this time.”

At the dispositional hearing, the case manager testified the children were

having regular visits with the mother. The girls were not having visits with the

father because “[f]or one, the girls have stated that they do not want to see him

right now, and, then, secondly, because he is—he’s reportedly [the] perpetrator for

the sexual abuse.” Both parents continued to deny that sexual abuse occurred.

The case plan required the father to complete a psychosexual assessment and

follow through with recommended services. The mother was required to “seek

counseling services with the children to better understand their victimization, in

order to improve caretaker supervision needs for the children.” The caseworker
5

also stated the mother must “acknowledge [the abuse] happened, to be there for

support for the children, to provide them with an environment that is free from that.”

The case manager stated that “we need to ensure that there is a safe home

environment without fear for the children, which would then include [the father] not

being in the home at this time.” When asked, “Is it possible to progress in the CINA

case when neither parent will even acknowledge that sexual abuse is an issue[,]”

the case manager responded, “I don’t see how it can. That is a major barrier, and

we can’t start to make progress in the case until that first step is taken and it’s

acknowledged that this happened.”

The court continued the CINA status and found “[r]emaining with Misty is

the least restrictive disposition available.” The father appeals.

II. Scope and Standard of Review

The State must prove its CINA allegations by clear and convincing

evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). We review the CINA proceedings de novo. In

re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2014). That review allows us to assess the facts

and the law and “adjudicate rights anew.” In re D.D., 955 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa

2021) (citation omitted). We are not bound by the district court’s fact findings, but

we give them weight. Id. “Our primary concern is the children’s best interests.”

J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 40.

We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. In re N.N.E., 752

N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa 2008).

III. Analysis

The father claims the court “improperly admitted both documentary and

testimonial evidence in contravention of the applicable rules of evidence regarding
6

admissibility” and “[o]nce the inadmissible evidence is properly stricken from the

record, the State failed to meet its evidentiary burden of clear and convincing

evidence” to adjudicate the children as CINA. We address each of the father’s

claims in turn.

A. Challenged Evidence

Iowa Code section 232.96 governs the admissibility of evidence in child-

welfare cases. As a baseline, “[o]nly evidence which is admissible under the rules

of evidence applicable to the trial of civil cases shall be admitted” in a child-welfare

proceeding, except as otherwise provided in this section. Iowa Code § 232.96(3).

An exception appears in section 232.96(6):

A report, study, record, or other writing or an audiotape or
videotape recording made by the department of human services, a
juvenile court officer, a peace officer or a hospital relating to a child
in a proceeding under this division is admissible notwithstanding any
objection to hearsay statements contained in it provided it is relevant
and material and provided its probative value substantially outweighs
the danger of unfair prejudice to the child’s parent, guardian, or
custodian. The circumstances of the making of the report, study,
record or other writing or an audiotape or videotape recording,
including the maker’s lack of personal knowledge, may be proved to
affect its weight.

Under this section, “certain hearsay evidence that would be otherwise prohibited

by the Iowa Rules of Evidence is expressly admissible in such proceedings.”

7 Laurie Kratky Doré, Iowa Practice Series: Evidence § 5.1101:3 (Nov. 2019

update).
7

At the adjudication hearing, the father challenged the admission of State’s

exhibits “PET 001,” “PET 002,” and “PET 003,” as well as the GAL’s exhibit “GAL

001,” on hearsay grounds.3 The court ruled as follows:

PET 001 is a letter to the County Attorney from the children’s
therapist giving a “brief update” on their therapy. It notes some
disclosures relating to the reason for therapy, as well as the
diagnoses of each child. PET 002 is a letter from the Child Protection
Response Center regarding the children, acknowledging the girls’
attendance and a brief note of why each girl is attending. PET 003
is a detailed report from Dr. Richard Blunk of the Child Protection
Response Center regarding his evaluation of [L.G].
Although hearsay, the Court finds that all three documents are
covered by one of the exceptions delineated in Iowa Code 232.96,
specifically subsection (6) . . . .
PET 002 and PET 003 are specifically on point as being
directly from a child protection center, while PET 001 is from the
children’s primary caregiver in relation to treatment they received
after the disclosures that form the basis for this child in need of
assistance case. The Court notes that admissibility under this
section is initially based on the source of the document. The Court
finds PET 001, the writing derived from therapeutic sessions initiated
after the disclosure of the alleged trauma that forms the basis of this
case, to be indistinguishable from the type of source that is
specifically articulated as admissible: a child protection response unit
or hospital.

3 The State contends that the father failed to preserve error on admissibility of the

challenged exhibits. We disagree. The father objected, arguing “[t]here’s no
foundation” for the exhibits and “there’s also statements in there which are clearly
hearsay in nature.” And the court ruled on his objections. Error was preserved.
As an aside, the exhibits in this appellate record do not contain a physical exhibit
sticker or an electronic exhibit stamp. “The clarity of the appellate record benefits
by having exhibit stickers on the electronically submitted exhibits. The exhibits
contained in this record do not have exhibit stickers or other markings indicating
the number of the individual exhibits.” In re N.G., No. 19-1732, 2020 WL 825965,
at *1 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2020). “Our independent review of the record is
decidedly more difficult due to the absence of exhibit stickers or other identifying
markers on the bulk of the exhibits. It is critical for review of the trial court record
that the exhibits contain an identifier on the exhibit.” In re A.D., No. 19-1459, 2020
WL 105093, at *4 n.7 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020). Also, “[i]t is essential for our
review that exhibits have some identifying information.” In re J.W., No. 14-0515,
2014 WL 3749419, at *2 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 30, 2014).
8

The Court further finds the statements contained in PET 001,
002 and 003 are “relevant” and “material” and the probative value
substantially outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice to [the father].
Further, any statements beyond how the children are doing in
therapy that would be directly prejudicial to [the father]—“[L.G.]
began therapy on 4/21/22 after disclosing that she had been sexually
abused by her father . . . ”—would be subject to an exception to the
hearsay rule notwithstanding the specific carveouts in Iowa Code
[section] 232.96. Statements made for medical diagnosis or
treatment are generally exceptions to the hearsay rule. See Iowa R.
[Evid.] 5.803(4).
With respect to GAL 001, however, the Court comes to a
different conclusion. GAL 001 is a single document containing letters
to the Court from each child, discussing what they want and, in some
cases, discussing the allegations. The Court does not find that
letters from the children, which are hearsay, are covered by any
exception. They are not admissible at Adjudication.[4]

In our review of the challenged exhibits, we conclude that exhibits PET 002

and PET 003 were subject to the exceptions contained in section 232.96(6). Both

exhibits are writings from a hospital relating to a child subject to this proceeding.

We therefore reject the father’s argument as to these two exhibits.

As noted above, exhibit PET 001 is a letter from the children’s therapist.

The district court admitted it under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(4), determining

that it fit under the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis and

treatment. We are not convinced that a letter providing an update from a therapist

fits under this exception. Based on the record before us, we assume without

deciding this letter was admitted in error. But the evidence contained in exhibit

PET 001 is cumulative of information contained in exhibits PET 002 and 003, which

we have determined were properly admitted. Evidence that is merely cumulative

is not prejudicial. In re A.S., 743 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).

4 The exclusion of exhibit GAL 001 is not an issue on appeal.
9

Additionally, two child abuse assessments (prepared in November 2021

and September 2023) were judicially noticed by the district court, and the court

noted “[s]ex abuse second degree was founded on [L.G.], age 12 at that point,

[K.G.], age 11, and [N.G.], age 11 at that point.” The assessments set forth the

children’s descriptions of the abuse and their reactions to the abuse, including

being “upset”; “worried [the other] sisters are starting to get touched by [the father]”;

not “want[ing] to be the person to break up the family” by telling what happened;

and not telling about the abuse because no one would believe them.5 While the

request for judicial notice was objected to at the hearing, such is not challenged

on appeal.

We agree with the father that a child protective assessment cannot be the

sole basis for adjudication. See Iowa Code § 232.96(4); In re D.S., No. 14-2021,

2015 WL 800084, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015). But here it was not the sole

basis. Aside from documentary evidence separate from the child protective

assessments, the State called five witnesses.

As to those witnesses, the father’s brief also alleges “the court improperly

admitted testimonial evidence in contravention of the applicable rules of evidence

regarding admissibility.” But his argument on appeal is limited to the following:

Counsel for the father raised multiple and repeated objections to
portions of the testimonial evidence. For example, father’s counsel
objected to testimony from Joelle England and Rodney Blue, who
both provided hearsay testimony regarding what they each read in
Mr. Schmitz’s Child Abuse Assessment Summary. The Court
repeatedly overruled father’s counsel’s objections to the hearsay in
error and contrary to the rules of evidence even as the Court
acknowledged the testimony’s status as hearsay without an

5 The record also includes a court-appointed special advocate report to the court,

generally discussing the children’s participation in therapy following the abuse.
10

exception (e.g., “recognizing he’s just repeating from the
assessment.”). Adjudicatory Transcript, p. 47, lines 24-25. The
Court improperly considered multiple items of testimony from the
record, overruling counsel’s objections improperly at multiple
junctures in the hearing. Father’s counsel’s objections to testimony
should have been upheld for the reasons proffered at the time of the
objection and for the reason(s) stated on the record. The Court erred
in failing to sustain father’s counsel’s multiple objections to hearsay
and other inadmissible evidence.

The father’s brief fails to cite to the record on all but one of his challenges

to testimony. The father’s statement, “The Court erred in failing to sustain father’s

counsel’s multiple objections to hearsay and other inadmissible evidence” is not

sufficient to enable us to review any other challenged testimony and does not

comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d),

.1401–Form 5; In re K.D., No. 21-0581, 2021 WL 3897419, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Sept. 1, 2021) (discussing these rules). Therefore, we consider only the objection

that contains a cite to the record on the testimony of Rodney Blue, a child protective

worker for HHS:

Q: In this case, all three girls were interviewed, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And had knowledge of the events, correct? A: Correct.
FATHER’S COUNSEL: Objection; continues to bolster the
document that was admitted.
COURT: Understood. I’ll give it the weight I think it deserves,
recognizing he’s just repeating from the assessment.

We find no abuse of discretion in this preserved challenged evidentiary

ruling.

B. Grounds for Adjudication

We turn to the grounds for adjudication challenged by the father on appeal,

as the father claims the adjudication is not supported by the evidence. He

maintains “not a single witness testified of direct knowledge of the veracity of the
11

[sexual abuse] allegations.” According to the father, “[o]nce the record is stripped

of inadmissible evidence, the State’s case hangs by the thread of the allegations

contained in the Child Abuse Assessment Summary,” but “[t]he State did not offer

Mr. Schmitz, author of that critical report, for testimony to support his findings, nor

to be subject to cross examination.”6 In short, the father denies he sexually abused

the children.

A court may enter a CINA adjudication if the court “concludes that facts

sufficient to sustain the petition have been established by clear and convincing

evidence and that its aid is required.” Iowa Code § 232.96(9). “Clear and

convincing evidence exists when there are no serious or substantial doubts as to

the correctness of conclusions of law drawn from the evidence.” In re L.H., 904

N.W.2d 145, 149 (Iowa 2017) (cleaned up).

The court adjudicated the children under section 232.96A(3)(a) and (4). We

discuss each ground in turn. See J.S., 846 N.W.2d at 41 (addressing each ground

found by the court because “[t]he grounds for a CINA adjudication do matter”); In

re L.G., 532 N.W.2d 478, 480 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (“The underlying grounds of

adjudication in [CINA] cases have important legal implications beyond the

adjudication.”).

Section 232.96A(3)(a) applies when a “child has suffered or is imminently

likely to suffer harmful effects as a result of” “[m]ental injury caused by the acts of

the child’s parent.” “‘Mental injury’ means a nonorganic injury to a child’s

6 As noted above, the father was offered the opportunity to examine caseworker

Schmitz on another day, but he rejected the court’s offer. In any event, the father
was able to cross-examine two other caseworkers who worked on this case and
were privy to the contents of the assessment.
12

intellectual or psychological capacity as evidenced by an observable and

substantial impairment in the child’s ability to function within the child’s normal

range of performance and behavior, considering the child’s cultural origin.” Iowa

Code § 232.2(39).

Here, the children suffered from trauma associated with the sexual abuse

in their home perpetrated by the father. They suffered further trauma because the

mother maintains they are lying about the sexual abuse, and the mother voluntarily

placed them with Misty because she was not willing to make the father leave the

family home. This ground for adjudication is supported by the witness testimony,

properly admitted exhibits PET 002 and 003, and the judicially noticed child abuse

assessments not challenged on appeal. Specifically, PET 003 noted L.G.’s panic

attacks, anxiety, depression, being angry, and “sometimes wanting to hurt herself

or others.” L.G. also related episodes of cutting. PET 002 noted all three children

were being seen for behavioral health intervention. We conclude there is clear

and convincing evidence to support the CINA adjudication under

section 232.96A(3)(a).

The court also relied on section 232.96A(4), which applies when “[t]he child

has been, or is imminently likely to be, sexually abused by the child’s parent.” The

court relied on the founded report of sexual abuse against the father and the

testimony of HHS caseworkers, who described their interactions with the children

and the children’s behaviors since the abuse was exposed. The father’s attorney

moved to dismiss the State’s petition, arguing “there’s not a basis for [the court] to

find there’s adjudication” because the parents were cooperating with facilitating the
13

children’s medical care and there was no evidence the father had been criminally

charged with inappropriate contact with the children in the past.

On appeal, we give weight to the district court’s factual findings, especially

when considering the credibility of witnesses. In re B.B., 598 N.W.2d 312, 315

(Iowa 1999). We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to

support the CINA adjudication under section 232.96A(4), including the founded

child abuse assessment against the father for sexual abuse and the additional

evidence presented at the adjudication hearing. And we are not persuaded by the

father’s argument that because criminal charges were not filed against the father

the district court lacked sufficient evidence to adjudicate the children. See D.D.,

955 N.W.2d at 196 (Christensen, C.J., concurring specially) (“Regardless of why

the criminal charges were dropped, the sexual abuse report against Stepdad

remains founded and the juvenile court made similar findings that the sexual abuse

occurred.”).

To the extent that the father makes an argument that the State failed to

meet its burden of proof because the author of the child abuse assessment did not

testify, as previously noted, this argument goes to the weight to be given to the

report, not the admissibility. As to the author’s unavailability, the court ruled:

If we get done today and we’re not finished, and a party needs to call
another witness that’s not here, I’m not going to prevent them from
doing so. Again, we’ll proceed today, and if we have to set a day two
because we need another witness, we can do that or cross that
bridge if there’s an objection to it, but I’ll note that for the record.

No additional witnesses were called by any party. But as noted above, the father

does not challenge the district court taking judicial notice of the child abuse
14

assessments. So any testimony from the author of the founded assessment

concerning sexual abuse would be cumulative to that already in the record.

AFFIRMED.