No. 4-085 / 03-1545Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed March 10, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.
D.C. appeals from the order of the juvenile court requiring him to register as a sex offender pursuant to Iowa Code section 692A.2 (2003). AFFIRMED.
Phillip Seidl of Seidl Chicchelly, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Rebecca Belcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
HECHT, J.
The juvenile court of Linn County adjudicated fourteen-year-old D.C. a delinquent after he admitted he committed two acts of sexual abuse in the second-degree against his five- and ten-year-old sisters. In April 2002, he was removed from his home and placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services for placement in a residential treatment facility. On July 21, 2003, D.C. was returned to the custody of his guardian, placed on probation, and required to attend follow-up counseling sessions. A hearing was scheduled for August 26, 2003, to determine whether D.C. would be required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Iowa Code section 692A.2 (2003).
Shortly after he was placed on probation, D.C. and his guardian left the state. Although they left a phone message with D.C.’s probation officer indicating they were leaving, they did not inform the probation officer how they could be contacted, how long they would be gone, or where they could be reached. Although D.C. attended one counseling session before they left, he missed another scheduled session when he left Iowa. D.C. and his guardian returned to Iowa for the August 26 hearing. They testified that they left the state to visit relatives and to seek employment for D.C.’s guardian. They further testified that they did not leave a forwarding address with D.C’s probation officer because they did not know where they would be staying. Their testimony also indicated that they intended to relocate permanently out of state, they no longer had a permanent residence in Iowa, and they were staying temporarily with family in Michigan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court ordered D.C. returned to the custody of the Department of Human Services because of his failure to comply with the terms of his probation and because D.C. and his guardian had no stable residence at that time.
The juvenile court, in an order dated August 27, 2003, determined D.C. should register as a sex offender. The juvenile court concluded D.C. should be required to register because of the seriousness of the offenses and his lack of cooperation with supervision and services after his release from residential treatment.
In this appeal, D.C. alleges the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered him to register as a sex offender. D.C. also contends the hearing on August 26 violated his due process rights. However, because D.C. did not raise his constitutional claim before the juvenile court, we will not address it for the first time in this appeal. See In re K.C. and S.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003).
We review a juvenile court’s decision requiring a juvenile to register as a sex offender for an abuse of discretion. In re S.M.M., 558 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Iowa 1997). An abuse of discretion will be found when the juvenile court’s decision rests on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999).
Iowa Code section 692A.2(4) contemplates that a person who is convicted of a sexually violent offense “as a result of adjudication of delinquency in juvenile court shall be required to register as required in this chapter unless the juvenile court finds that the person should not be required to register under this chapter.” Thus, a juvenile will be presumed to be required to register unless the juvenile proves that he entitled to an exception from the registration requirements of Iowa Code section 692A.2. S.M.M., at 406.
D.C. presented evidence at his hearing that he had completed his residential treatment program successfully and that his test scores indicated he presents a relatively low risk to re-offend. Despite this evidence, we cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion by refusing to excuse D.C. from his obligation to register as a sex offender after considering the seriousness of his offenses and his lack of cooperation after his release into the care of his guardian. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision to require D.C. to comply with the registration requirements of section 692A.2.
AFFIRMED.