IN INTEREST OF N.B., 690 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa App. 2004)

No. 4-596 / 04-1100.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 26, 2004.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David Remley, Judge.

Father appeals the terms of a disposition order. AFFIRMED.

Leslie Stokke, Cedar Rapids, for appellant-father.

Joseph Bertroche, Cedar Rapids, for appellee-mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Kelly Kaufman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.

Pamela Lewis, Cedar Rapids, and Hanna Weston, Cedar Rapids, for child.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.

EISENHAUER, J.

A father appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order in a child in need of assistance (CINA) action. He contends the court erred in denying his request to return to the unsupervised visitation schedule in existence prior to the CINA adjudication. He also contends he should have been granted the right to review a confidential social history report.

The mother and father of N.B., born in June of 1998, were never married. A CINA petition was filed on September 10, 2003. The court had entered an order on September 9, 2003 “removing” the child from the custody of his father and placing him in the “sole temporary” custody of his mother. At the time, pursuant to court order, the mother was the physical custodian of the child subject to visitation with the father. It is unclear why the removal procedure pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.78 was used under these circumstances. A hearing was held on January 8, 2004 to review the “removal.” As stated by the juvenile court, the hearing turned into a review of the visitation between the father and son. The court ordered continued supervised visitation.

On April 21, 2004, the child was adjudicated to be in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(1) and (f) (2003). The court ordered the Department of Human Services to conduct a social investigation and prepare a social report, ordered the child to continue in his mother’s care under the protective supervision of the DHS, and ordered psychological evaluations of the parents and child. The child refused all visitations with the father after April 15, 2004.

At a June 2004 dispositional hearing, the father requested a return to more frequent unsupervised visitations. In its order, the court refused, finding it was not in the child’s best interest that he be forced to visit his father. The psychological evaluations had not been completed and the court ordered they be completed within thirty days.

Our scope of review in child in need of assistances cases is de novo. In re D.S., 563 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). While we give weight to the juvenile court’s findings of fact because the court has had the unique opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses firsthand, we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). The primary concern is the best interest of the child. In re L.B., 530 N.W.2d 465, 467 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).

We agree it is not in the child’s best interest that visitation with the father be forced and unsupervised. Although he has not explained why he refuses visitation, the child has clearly demonstrated fear and anxiety in regard to these visitations. The father has a lengthy history of domestic violence and was found to be the perpetrator of abuse against his step-daughter, causing her brain damage. The State, the Department of Human Services, the child’s therapist, and the guardian ad litem all recommended continued supervised visitation.

The father argues the child is refusing visitations due to the mother’s interference. However, the juvenile court made clear findings there is no evidence that the mother has manipulated the child to discourage visitations. We find no evidence to the contrary and affirm the visitation provisions of the disposition order.

The father also contends the court erred in denying his request to view the social report prepared by the DHS. The report was provided to counsel as required by 232.97. In regard to providing the report to parents, Iowa Code section 232.97(3) provides in pertinent part:

The court may in its discretion order counsel not to disclose parts of the report to the child, or to the parent, guardian or custodian if disclosure would seriously harm the treatment or rehabilitation of the child or would violate a promise of confidentiality given to a source of information.

The father has failed to articulate how the court abused its discretion in denying his request to review the report. Nor can he show he was prejudiced by the denial. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.