IN THE INTEREST OF F.B., J.B., and K.B., Minor Children, D.E., Father, Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E.
Seymour, District Associate Judge.
father appeals from the order adjudicating his child to be a
child in need of assistance. AFFIRMED.
Nicholas A. Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Altoona, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Michael J. Bandstra of Bandstra Law Office, Des Moines, for
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
father appeals from the juvenile court's findings as
related to the children being adjudicated as children in need
of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section
232.2(6)(b) (2016), that is, "[w]hose parent, guardian,
other custodian, or other member of the household in which
the child resides has physically abused or neglected the
child, or is imminently likely to abuse or neglect the
child." He does not challenge the findings the children
are CINA under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (failure to properly
supervise), (6)(e) (failure to provide needed medical
treatment), and (6)(n) (parent's mental capacity results
in child not receiving adequate care). The court adjudicated
the children in need of assistance on all four grounds but
did dismiss the allegation that the children were CINA
pursuant to section 232.2(6)(d) (sexual abuse).
State must prove the CINA ground alleged by clear and
convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). We review
CINA proceedings de novo. In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36,
40 (Iowa 2014). We give weight to the juvenile court's
findings of fact but are not bound by them. Id.
full review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the
juvenile court's findings that the children are in need
of assistance under section 232.2(6)(b). See id. at
41 (discussing section 232.2(6)(b)).
October 20, 2016, four children were temporarily removed from
the care of the Daniel and Tiffney. Daniel is the father of
three of the children: F.B., born August 2012; J.B., born
July 2014; and K.B, born February 2016. After an
uncontested hearing on October 27, the emergency removal was
confirmed and continued due to the parents' "failure
to meet children's basic medical needs; failure to
provide appropriate nutrition of children; failure to
properly supervise children; possible sexual abuse for
[F.B.];" the custodial parents "allowing
inappropriate persons around children; unresolved substance
abuse issues" of custodial mother; and the
"children's unsafe living environment." In the
removal order, the juvenile court noted that upon the
department of human services (DHS) direction following a
report of possible abuse:
[Tiffney] took [J.B.] and [F.B.] to the hospital as directed.
The photographic evidence clearly depicts the numerous,
unexplained injuries, and serious injuries to these two
children. [F.B.]'s rash covered the entire area her
diaper would have covered. It was red, blistering and
bleeding. According to testimony it would have been painful
to her and was so bad the treating medical staff was unable
to determine if it was simply one of the wors[t] cases of
diaper rash the doctor had ever seen or due to some type of
virus such as herpes. [J.B.]'s sores on his hips were
almost to the bone and it was the doctor's opinion that
the parent's explanation of a reaction to duct tape
(apparently used to hold on his diapers) was not plausible.
[J.B.] had bruising all over his body, including on his head,
ears, and legs. The substance observed on the child's
feet the day before was still on his feet and was confirmed
to be feces. Further, both [F.B.] and [J.B.] were
significantly underweight and medical staff reported that
when [J.B.] was seen at the hospital he consumed copious
amounts of food and drink and was obviously hungry. The
medical staff also noted he was emotionally withdrawn and did
not speak or smile when staff attempted to engage with him.
Neither he nor [F.B.] had been seen for regular checkups or
immunizations which the parents claimed to financial reasons
but notably, both [I.H.] and [K.B.] have been regularly seen
by doctors. The evidence seems to indicate [F.B.] and [J.B.]
were targeted for abuse and neglect.
As noted in the CINA adjudication order, an
"uncontested" adjudication hearing was held on
November 18, 2016,  after which the juvenile court made these
specific written findings, which we adopt:
The Court makes the following specific findings of fact: The
evidence shows that . . . [J.B.] had significant bruising all
over his body, including legs, face, head, and torso. The
parents offered multiple explanations for, including him
being in a car accident, him being abused by his older
sibling, and the child being an "active" child. The
Court finds the amount of bruising and changing explanations,
coupled with the other circumstances, convinces the Court