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.
The Judge made a decision regarding the allegation.
> 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.
DHS denied the request for a reversal of their decision because a
Judge already made a decision.
Res Judicata.
Not that either decision was accurate or correct.
> An administrative law judge dismissed the appeal request and Grant
> took the appeal to district court.
Because a Judge already made a decision regarding the allegation.
> 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.
Because a Judge already made a decision regarding the allegation.
> 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.
Expect that DHS will deny a new hearing based on Res Judicata.
> 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.
Family Court Judges for the most part rubber stamp decisions and
recommendations made by DHS.
I wonder what proof was presented in court that the father kicked the
boy.
Was there evidence of an injury?
|
