Dana Peterson v. Iowa Department of Human Services

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-0298

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; July 16, 2014; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dana Peterson, the operator of Dana’s Daycare, is appealing a district court decision that upheld the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) actions against her. The DHS issued founded child abuse reports, placed her on the child abuse registry, and revoked her daycare registration, all stemming from an investigation into her use of a stackable crib that was not approved for use in daycare settings. Peterson has operated her facility for approximately seven years and purchased the stackable crib from Craigslist without any manufacturer’s safety documentation.

The investigation began when Wendy Taylor, a registered nurse, conducted a routine visit in April 2011 and raised concerns about the crib's safety. Although she could not verify the crib's compliance due to a lack of identification, Taylor referred to a flyer indicating that stackable cribs likely did not meet DHS standards. After providing Peterson with free, compliant cribs on the condition that she destroy the stackable unit, a complaint from a parent about the safety of the stackable crib prompted further investigation by DHS social workers. The court ultimately affirmed the agency's decision, giving deference to its findings despite Peterson's claims of insufficient evidence and disproportionate impact on her rights.

On July 26, 2011, during an unannounced visit, DHS representatives Lehman and Huntington observed a child in a top crib without a mattress in a daycare facility. They were informed that the child, approximately two years old, was mattress-less due to her tendency to throw it out, raising concerns about her ability to climb out and the associated fall risk. The nursery's Dutch doors were closed, and no adult was supervising the children inside. Autumn King, who was present, claimed to be an approved provider but was not, while the actual provider, Peterson, was next door. Lehman and Huntington advised Peterson against using the top cribs and created a safety plan that included discontinuing their use, keeping the Dutch door open for supervision, and ensuring both providers were present when more than eight children were in care.

Subsequent information revealed that Peterson was providing care from her personal home and that a nurse consultant had advised her to destroy the cribs. On a follow-up visit on July 28, 2011, the DHS found Peterson still using the stackable cribs, with only King on-site again, and both halves of the Dutch door closed. Peterson had not adhered to the safety plan and argued, based on legal advice, that she could use the cribs since they were not recalled. During the visit, the representatives confirmed she was caring for children in an unapproved location. The DHS classified the situation as child abuse under Iowa Code, placed the incident on the abuse registry, and revoked Peterson’s child care approval. Peterson appealed the decisions, and an administrative law judge conducted a hearing on three issues: the classification of child abuse, Peterson's eligibility to provide child care, and the cancellation of her Child Care Assistance Provider Agreement.

Peterson sought a review of the ALJ's decision from the DHS director, who affirmed the ruling. Subsequently, Peterson appealed to the district court. Under Iowa law, the court can grant relief if the agency's actions have prejudiced substantial rights and meet specific criteria outlined in section 17A.19(10)(a)-(n). The district court upheld the agency's decision, prompting Peterson's appeal. 

The review of the agency's proceeding is based on Iowa Code section 17A.19(10), allowing for reversal or modification if it is determined that agency actions are unsupported by substantial evidence or are deemed unreasonable, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence is defined as sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would consider adequate to establish the fact at issue. 

Peterson argued that the evidence did not substantiate the DHS’s founded-abuse determinations, particularly citing inadequate supervision. The agency concluded that Peterson failed to supervise a child appropriately, leading to harm or risk thereof. Peterson challenged the adequacy of the "concerns" raised by DHS representatives, arguing they did not constitute substantial evidence. However, the court noted that these concerns were informed by the expertise of child safety professionals and were part of a broader evidentiary foundation. 

The record included detailed notes from investigations and testimonies that highlighted safety issues and Peterson's dishonesty. The court's review focuses on whether the evidence supports the agency's findings, rather than whether it could lead to alternative conclusions. The DHS's documentation of safety recommendations, although not legally binding, indicated Peterson's awareness of potential issues, and her subsequent denial influenced the agency's assessment of her credibility, which the district court affirmed.

Peterson disregarded safety concerns regarding the use of stackable crib units despite being provided with new, approved cribs and receiving explicit instructions from DHS representatives not to use them during their first unannounced visit. She signed a safety plan agreeing to refrain from using the top cribs. The record indicates multiple instances where DHS representatives and Taylor observed closed Dutch doors, which hindered adult supervision and left children unattended. The ALJ determined that a reasonable person would not leave children out of sight, especially when using a potentially hazardous product. The ALJ found credible evidence that the stackable cribs posed a fall risk, particularly for mobile children. The evidence, primarily derived from direct observations by DHS employees, was deemed sufficient to support the agency's conclusion.

Regarding Peterson's placement on the child abuse registry, she argued there was insufficient evidence to warrant this action because she removed the crib unit during the second DHS visit and claimed the Dutch doors were never both closed simultaneously. However, under Iowa law, founded reports of child abuse must be entered into the registry if they are not minor, isolated, or unlikely to reoccur. The ALJ and district court concluded that Peterson's actions failed to meet these criteria. Although the use of the stackable cribs did not result in injuries, it was deemed a severe risk for children who could climb out. Peterson's use of the cribs over four months and her pattern of insufficient supervision indicated a likelihood of reoccurrence, affirming her placement on the registry.

Peterson was explicitly instructed not to continue certain practices, yet she persisted, leading to her placement on the child abuse registry. The district court found substantial evidence to support this decision. Regarding the revocation of Peterson’s child care registration, Iowa Code section 237A.12 grants the Department of Human Services (DHS) authority to regulate home daycare and investigate child abuse allegations. Registration can be revoked if a hazard to child safety is identified and not corrected, or if the provider fails to comply with legal standards. The DHS revoked Peterson's registration due to unaddressed hazards and inadequate supervision.

Despite warnings about troubling practices related to cribs and supervision, Peterson did not rectify these issues. Additionally, the DHS determined Peterson was not honest with its representatives, notably regarding her daughter King's status as an unapproved provider. King had previously been denied approval for five years, yet both she and Peterson falsely claimed King was approved. Evidence indicated they altered an approval notice to deceive DHS. Reports also indicated Peterson provided care at an unapproved location and allowed King to work in the daycare despite her drug convictions. The district court affirmed the DHS's findings, concluding substantial evidence supported the revocation.

The legal framework stipulates that if an agency’s action disproportionately harms private rights without substantial public interest justification, it can be overturned on appeal, as outlined in Iowa Code 17A.19(10)(k).

Peterson claims her right to operate a child care service and the income derived from it outweighs the public interest in the closure of her facility. She argues that while the Department of Human Services (DHS) can function without her business, she cannot continue her business without DHS registration. However, this argument fails to establish that the DHS's actions are 'grossly disproportionate' to the public benefit, as highlighted in relevant case law. Peterson has not successfully shown that her business interests surpass the public's interest in child safety. 

Regarding the DHS's decision to revoke her childcare approval and place her on the child abuse registry, Peterson describes these actions as an 'overreaction' based on 'unreasonable fears.' To challenge this, she must prove a 'lack of rationality' in the DHS's decisions, which involves demonstrating that the agency's actions were clearly against reason and evidence. The court is required to support the agency's findings unless there is a clear conflict in evidence or unreasonable conclusions drawn from it.

Peterson argues that the DHS's decisions stemmed from subjective concerns rather than concrete evidence of infractions. Despite her claims, the court emphasizes that it cannot interfere with agency findings where evidence conflicts or where reasonable interpretations differ. Peterson was warned about potential issues with a stackable crib unit and was offered alternative solutions, which she chose not to employ. During a follow-up visit, she was still not adhering to the agreed safety plan. The court concludes that the DHS's actions were not arbitrary or capricious, affirming that Peterson has not proven her private interests outweigh public safety concerns or that the agency's decisions lacked substantial evidence. The ruling is affirmed.