In the Interest of B.H., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 25-0504
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0504 Filed May 21, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF B.H., Minor Child,

B.H., Father, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic,

Judge.

A father appeals and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services

cross-appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order. AFFIRMED IN PART

AND REVERSED IN PART ON APPEAL; REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL.

Danielle M. Ellingson of Noah, Smith, Sloter & Ellingson PLC, Charles City,

for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Michelle R. Becker, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Elizabeth Wayne, Parkersburg, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and

Langholz, JJ. 2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

In the throes of a mental-health episode, the father reported that he sexually

abused his seven-year-old daughter. After stabilizing, the father denied any

abuse, and an investigation found some evidence abuse may have occurred but

not a preponderance to confirm the allegation. Still, the daughter was removed

and adjudicated in need of assistance given the father’s ongoing mental-health

struggles. And the juvenile court barred any contact between the father and

daughter. In a prior appeal, we reversed that bar, finding fully supervised visitation

suitable to protect the daughter while working toward reunification.

While that appeal was pending, the father obtained a troubling

psychosexual evaluation, which recommended no contact between the father and

daughter until the father completed inpatient sex-offender treatment. The juvenile

court enforced that recommendation, but the father’s ability to work toward visits

ground to a halt when the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services could

not find a program that would accept the father. Seven months passed without

any luck. And during that time, the father was compliant with all other treatment

and recommendations. So the father and Department requested that fully

supervised visits in a therapeutic setting begin. The juvenile court denied any

visitation, and both the father and Department appeal.

We reverse the visitation restriction. Given the father’s progress over the

past year, and with the safeguards of full supervision and a therapeutic setting, we

believe the daughter can be adequately protected while allowing the case to

proceed. As for the father’s request for a new evaluation by a new provider, the

court’s order indeed authorized that request, so we affirm that portion of the order. 3

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

In February 2024, a seven-year-old daughter was removed from her

parents’ custody after the father told the mother that he sexually abused the

daughter.1 The father is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.

Although his condition is well managed on medication, his treating physician

changed his medications in February, which led to a manic episode. And it was

during this manic episode that the father told the mother that he sexually abused

the daughter. A few days later, he was admitted to the hospital for inpatient

psychiatric care. After stabilizing, the father denied ever abusing the daughter.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services investigated the

allegation and found that it was not confirmed because the evidence that sexual

abuse occurred did not “reach a preponderance of the evidence.” Some evidence

appeared to corroborate abuse—around the time of the alleged abuse, the

daughter had gone to the doctor for unexplained vagina bleeding and the doctor

observed irritation in her vaginal area. But the daughter was unwilling to discuss

the allegations during a child protective center interview. And given the father’s

mental condition at the time of his statement, the investigator concluded “[i]t cannot

be proven whether this disclosure was true or the result of a delusion, but it does

certainly show that [the daughter] is not currently safe in [the father’s] care.”

The daughter was adjudicated in need of assistance in April. In that order,

the juvenile court noted the father’s condition had steadied and he was “responsive

1 We avoid using the parties’ names to respect their privacy because this opinion—

unlike the juvenile court’s order—is public. Compare Iowa Code § 232.147(2) (2025), with id. §§ 602.4301(2), 602.5110. 4

and cooperative” during his interactions with the Department. Still, the court

cautioned that although the allegation was not “confirmed,” that did not “mean the

abuse didn’t happen.” To that end, the court stressed the daughter’s “physical

indicators consistent with the abuse” and her “refusal to discuss contact with the

Father” during her interview suggested the abuse may have occurred. So it placed

the daughter in her paternal grandparents’ care and denied the Department’s

request to start visits between the father and daughter as “premature.” And it

ordered the father to complete a psychosexual evaluation.

About a month later, the Department reported the father was complying with

all treatment and recommendations, except he had not yet completed the

psychosexual evaluation. To begin working toward reunification, the Department

requested that visitation between the father and daughter begin, with “interactions

start[ing] in a supervised and/or therapeutic environment after consultation with the

[daughter’s] therapist.” The guardian ad litem disagreed. Although the daughter

“voiced that she would like contact with her father,” the guardian was concerned

about resuming contact before the father was evaluated.

After a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court continued to bar the father

from having contact with the daughter. The father appealed, challenging the

daughter’s continued adjudication, continued removal, and the lack of visitation.

See In re B.H., No. 24-0869, 2024 WL 3688596, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024).

We affirmed the daughter’s adjudication and removal, but we reversed the

visitation restriction, remanding for “supervised visitation at HHS’s discretion.” Id.

at *4. In reversing, we stressed the importance of visitation when working toward

reunification and that “[r]estricting the father to supervised visitation, which 5

eliminates the risk of adjudicatory harm to the child, maintains the parent-child

bond, and serves the child’s best interests.” Id.

Shortly after our opinion was filed, the parties obtained the father’s

psychosexual evaluation. The evaluation was concerning, as the father was

“highly defensive” during testing; “had the tendency to avoid, sometimes minimize,

and contradict his responses across tests”; and exhibited some degree of

attraction to juvenile females. Ultimately, the evaluator “strongly recommended

that given the results of this evaluation [the father] continue to have a no contact

order in place with his daughter as well as no unsupervised time with minors.” It

also “strongly recommended” the father complete inpatient sex offender treatment.

After reviewing the report, the Department recommended the father “continue to

have no contact with [the daughter] and follow through with the recommendations

including in patient sexual offender treatment.” Still, the Department urged that

interactions between the father and daughter “be at the discretion” of the

Department, rather than the court. The guardian ad litem disagreed with giving the

Department discretion, pointing to the evaluator’s no-contact recommendation.

The case proceeded to an August dispositional hearing, where the juvenile

court noted that although our opinion ordered visitation to resume, circumstances

had changed. The court relied on the evaluation’s findings, including a diagnosis

of “frotteuristic disorder,” which “includes sexual gratification with a non-consenting

person.” So the court continued to prevent any visits or contact between the father

and daughter. It found sex offender treatment was “essential” for the father, and

planned to revisit the possibility of resuming contact “at every hearing to determine

if [the father] has made sufficient progress in his treatment program.” 6

But the father’s ability to progress toward visitation ground to a halt when

the Department could not find an inpatient sexual offender treatment program for

the father. Despite extensive efforts—including contacting programs in many other

states—the Department could not locate a program that would accept the father’s

insurance, comply with the evaluator’s recommendations, and had availability.

By November, the Department still had not found a provider, due in part to

its inability to provide “funding for ongoing treatment and services,” which meant a

program needed to accept the father’s insurance or be affordable out of pocket.

As for visits, the Department took no position on resuming contact. Instead, the

Department reported that “[s]hould the court allow visitation to begin,” it

recommended the visits “be fully supervised in a therapeutic setting.” And the

father requested that visits resume.

The court again denied any contact until he completed sex offender

treatment, citing the evaluation’s recommendation. But to move the case along, it

ordered the Department to pay for the treatment program, which it found directly

related to the Department’s reunification obligations. The Department petitioned

for certiorari review of the court’s order, which our supreme court granted. The

supreme court also stayed the portion of the juvenile court’s order directing the

Department to “find a funding source to pay” for the father’s sex offender treatment.

That certiorari proceeding remains pending.

Another four months passed without finding a treatment program. By a

March dispositional review hearing, the father had not had any contact with the

daughter in over a year. So the Department recommended that interactions

resume at its discretion and “in consultation with” the guardian ad litem. The 7

guardian ad litem agreed. And the father likewise requested visitation. He also

asked for a second psychosexual evaluation conducted by a different evaluator

than the first.

In its written order, the juvenile court authorized a new evaluation for the

father to obtain updated recommendations in light of his progress over the last

year. The court noted the evaluation would “ideally” be completed by the same

evaluator, but did not require it. And because the father still had not begun the

recommended sex offender treatment, the court found “the current

recommendation for no contact with [the daughter] needs to stay in effect.” So it

ordered that “[i]nteractions between the child and [the father] shall be suspended

at this time.”

The father now appeals, and the Department cross-appeals.

II. Visitation

Both the father and the Department challenge the juvenile court’s continued

bar on any contact between the father and daughter. We review child-in-need-of-

assistance proceedings de novo. In re M.B., 553 N.W.2d 343, 344 (Iowa Ct.

App. 1996).

As we stressed in the prior appeal, “[v]isitation between a parent and child

is an important ingredient to the goal of reunification.” Id. at 345. Even when a

parent fails “to comply with the requirements of a court order or the department,”

family interaction must continue in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings unless

the court or the department finds “that such interaction would be detrimental to the

child.” Iowa Code § 232.102A(2) (2025); accord M.B., 533 N.W.2d at 345 (“[T]he 8

nature and extent of visitation is always controlled by the best interests of the

child.”).

To begin, the Department insists that the juvenile court’s orders prohibiting

visitation lacked the necessary finding that visits would be “detrimental to the child,”

rendering them invalid. Iowa Code § 232.102A(2). We disagree. After reviewing

the evaluation, the juvenile court found the daughter could not safely interact with

the father until he engaged with sex offender treatment. The court consistently

enforced that finding across its orders over the following months. True, its orders

do not contain the word “detrimental.” But finding that a visit would be unsafe is in

essence the same. And we do not read section 232.102A(2) so rigidly as to

invalidate any visitation order that lacks the specific word “detrimental.” So we do

not reverse the visitation restriction on this basis.

Still, we disagree with the juvenile court’s finding that the daughter cannot

safely interact with her father during fully supervised visits in therapeutic settings.

To be sure, visitation “is only one element in what is often a comprehensive,

interdependent approach to reunification.” M.B., 553 N.W.2d at 345. Should

services “directed at removing the risk or danger responsible for a limited visitation

scheme” fail their “objective, increased visitation would most likely not be in the

child’s best interests.” Id. And we share the juvenile court’s goal of protecting the

daughter from any unsafe or damaging interactions with the father, as well as its

concern over the father’s statements during the evaluation and its resulting

findings. But nearly a year has passed since that evaluation. In this time, the

father began participating in, and regularly attends, couples therapy and a sexual-

addiction support group as recommended by the evaluator. He also consistently 9

attends mental-health therapy. He has not had another episode. Other than

participating in inpatient sex offender treatment, he has complied with every other

recommendation provided by the evaluator and the Department. So none of the

services directed at resuming contact have thus far failed their objective, and all

agree the father is blameless for his inability to complete inpatient treatment.

The daughter has also been participating in therapy. Her therapist reported

that “she is doing very well,” but that she “miss[es] her dad and hopes that they get

to have visitation soon,” and expressed the opinion that visitation in a therapy

setting would be “fine” for the daughter. The guardian ad litem also supported

resuming visitation in a therapeutic setting at the Department’s discretion.

Visitation arrangements should be “designed to facilitate reunification while

protecting the child from the harm responsible for the removal.” Id. With the

important controls of full supervision and a therapeutic setting, we believe the

daughter would be protected from the harm leading to her removal. So we reverse

the juvenile court’s visitation restriction to allow for fully supervised visitation in a

therapeutic setting to begin. The Department and juvenile court retain discretion

to terminate visits if they become detrimental to the daughter. See Iowa Code

§ 232.102A(2). And should the father or Department wish to progress to more

independent visits down the road, we leave it to the juvenile court—as informed by

the record and the Department’s and guardian ad litem’s recommendations—to

assess whether removing those limits would harm the daughter. See id.

III. New Psychosexual Evaluation

The father also challenges the juvenile court’s order for a new psychosexual

evaluation, contending that the court erroneously denied his request that it be 10

completed by a different evaluator than the first evaluation. The Department

agrees that a new evaluator is reasonable under the circumstances and any order

prohibiting that should be reversed. But the Department notes the written order

did not prohibit a new evaluator and no transcript of the hearing was yet available

when it filed its response to the father’s petition on appeal.

The Department is correct that the written order authorizing a second

evaluation does not require the same evaluator. Nor did the court make any such

verbal order at the hearing. In both contexts, the juvenile court expressed its

preference that the same professional evaluate the father but did not require it.

Given that the Department agrees with the father that a new evaluator is

appropriate here and the Department is permitted by the court order to proceed in

that manner, we see no basis to reverse.

In so finding, we stress one critical point. The father argues the new

evaluation should be “based on current information without any bias.” To the

extent that he believes he should not have to provide the new evaluator with a

copy of the prior evaluation, we disagree. The new evaluator should have access

to all information he or she finds necessary, including the prior evaluation.

Undergoing a new evaluation given his progress over the past year is a good step

toward assessing the viability of reunification—it is not an opportunity to avoid the

consequences of his behavior and responses during the first evaluation. With that,

we affirm the new-evaluation portion of the juvenile court’s order.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART ON APPEAL;

REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL.