On Nov 14, 8:34=A0am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_195225020.html
>
> Supreme Court orders rehearing in child abuse case Published: July 14,
> 2006 10:50 pm
> AP =97 DES MOINES =97 The Iowa Supreme Court reversed a district court
> decision Friday and ordered a state agency to hold a hearing on a
> father's claim that a child abuse re****t was incorrect.
> In the Clinton County case, the high court said the Iowa Department of
> Human Services must consider in a timely manner claims of error in
> child abuse *****sment cases.
> The case involved a child custody dispute between Robert Grant and
> Linda Jensen, who had two children during their marriage. They
> eventually divorced.
> During a visitation with the children in October 2001, one of the
> sons, who was age 6 at the time, re****ted that Grant became angry and
> kicked him.
> The Iowa Department of Human Services founded a child abuse re****t
> filed by Jensen and a district court judge granted her request for a
> protective order requiring supervised visits between Grant and the
> children.
> The judge found that Grant had endangered the children in a fit of
> anger and dismissed Grant's denial as implausible.
> In March 2002, Grant filed a written statement with the DHS claiming
> the agency's *****sment of the incident was incorrect and should be
> changed from founded to not confirmed.
> He claimed the child fabricated the incident because of manipulative
> influences by his mother. Grant pointed to results of a polygraph test
> that revealed he answered truthfully questions about the alleged
> incident.
> The DHS denied the correction request and Grant sought further review
> by the state.
> An administrative law judge dismissed the appeal request and Grant
> took the appeal to district court. It affirmed the agency's action
> based on a state law of preclusion that says cases already decided by
> an agency cannot be repeatedly litigated if the case is determined to
> be resolved.
> Grant appealed.
> The Supreme Court ruled that the case should be sent back to the DHS
> to hold a hearing to consider Grant's request for a change in the
> *****sment.
> The court said the public interest in maintaining correct records
> demands that the issue of preclusion "not be used to prevent the DHS
> from correcting *****sment re****ts."
> "The DHS should consider all timely claims of error by those who are
> the subject of a child abuse re****t and decide all issues presented by
> a correction request," the court said.
> Grant's attorney, Natalie Hope Cronk of Iowa City, said she believes
> Grant has a good chance of clearing his name when the case returns to
> the DHS for a rehearing.
> She believes the wider implications of the ruling means people
> involved with DHS investigations could have a better chance to seek
> additional hearings even if a court has ruled on one aspect of a child
> abuse investigation.
> The Iowa attorney general's office was reviewing the ruling Friday.
> Attorney Chuck Phillips said the agency could ask the Supreme Court to
> review its ruling, but a decision to seek a new hearing has not been
> made.
>
> Copyright =A9 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
What do you find wrong with the decision? The facts appear to
indicate the mother fraudulently used the child to punish the father
and cripple his parental rights.
As a domestic relations attorney I have seen that happen so many
times, and the dangers smack of the McMartin School and Little Rascals
fiascos. Of course, to be fair I've seen men pull fast ones too.
I'm glad to see the Supreme Court looking into some of these
decisions. No judicial decision in family court ought to ever be
absolute and final. IMHO, trial judges have too much power to find
facts in these controversies without judicial review. An
unaccountable judiciary is a dangerous animal.
So let the sun ****ne in.
|
