Melissa Sadler, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of S.S., A.S., Z.S., and I.S., Minor Children v. Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) Charles M. Palmer, In His Capacity as Director of DHS Stacy Deberg, Individually and in Her Capacity as Child Protective Worker Lori Mulder, Individually and in Her Capacity as DHS Social Worker II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1970
Filed April 17, 2019
MELISSA SADLER, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of S.S., A.S.,
Z.S., and I.S., Minor Children,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DHS); CHARLES M. PALMER,
In His Capacity as Director of DHS; STACY DEBERG, Individually, and in Her
Capacity as Child Protective Worker; LORI MULDER, Individually and in Her
Capacity as DHS Social Worker II,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Linda M. Fangman,
Judge.
Melissa Sadler, individually and as parent and next friend of four children,
appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ amotion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.
John G. Daufeldt of Daufeldt Law Firm, P.L.C., Conroy, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Charles K. Phillips, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellees.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Gamble, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
Melissa Sadler, individually and as parent and next friend of four children,
filed an action against the Iowa Department of Human Services, director Charles
Palmer, child protective worker Stacy DeBerg, and social worker Lori Mulder.1 She
alleged the defendants “fail[ed] to report child abuse or interfere[d] with the
reporting of child abuse pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 232.69 and 232.75
[(2017)].” She claimed their “failure to report or the interfering with reporting [was]
a wanton and reckless disregard of and for the Plaintiffs’ safety and well being,”
entitling her to actual and punitive damages and attorney fees. In separate counts,
Sadler also sought injunctive relief.
The defendants moved to dismiss the petition. They asserted the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the petition failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. At a hearing on the motion, the defendants asked the court
to take judicial notice of underlying juvenile court files. The district court declined,
limiting its consideration of the motion to the allegations in the petition. Following
the hearing, the court dismissed the counts relating to these defendants.2
On appeal, Sadler contends the district court erred in (1) finding a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction based on her failure to comply with the Iowa Tort Claims
Act, (2) finding the monetary-damage claim was an impermissible attempt to
appeal prior litigation, and (3) dismissing the monetary-damage claim for failure to
state a claim. We find the third issue dispositive.
1
The petition named a number of other defendants, who were dismissed.
2
Sadler’s claims against defendant Palmer were dismissed for lack of service.
3
In concluding Sadler failed to state a claim, the district court reasoned as
follows:
In Count I the Plaintiff claims Defendant D.H.S. failed to report
or interfered with a report pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.75. The
Plaintiffs further argue the State violated Iowa Code § 232.69,
[addressing] mandatory and permissive reporters, and later
attempted to orally amend the petition to claim a violation of Iowa
Code § 232.71 which has been repealed. However, the Court
believes counsel was referring to 232.71B, and the Plaintiffs claim
this is a cause of action because there is a statutory duty required
from the Department.
In looking first at Iowa Code § 232.69, which deals with
mandatory and permissive reporters, it delineates when they need to
report and to whom they need to report. It also deals with the training
required for mandatory and permissive reporters. This code section
deals solely with reporters and training. It does not in any way deal
with the D.H.S. investigation or any cause of action flowing from a
D.H.S. investigation.
Iowa Code § 232.75 is the sanction section for violating Iowa
Code § 232.69. Specifically Iowa Code § 232.75(2) states that any
person, official, agency, or institution required by section 232.69 to
report a suspected case of child abuse who knowingly fails to do so
or who knowingly interferes with the making of that report is civilly
liable for damages proximately caused. This section specifically
refers to mandatory reporters who failed to make a report. It does
not deal with D.H.S. workers and a duty to investigate. Nowhere
under Iowa Code § 232.75 puts any duty to investigate or any civil
liability on the Department for failure to investigate. . . .
....
When the Plaintiffs tried to orally amend the petition to Iowa
Code § 232.71B, they did not identify in any manner how the
Department of Human Services failed to comply with the duties of
that code section. Rather, they made a blanket statement that they
had a duty to reinvestigate the same complaint . . . .
The Court relies [on] In re M.H. by Callahan, 385 N.W.2d 533,
535–37 (Iowa 1986) where the Court there stated Iowa Code
§ 232.67 through .71 and 25A.14 did not intend to imply a tort action
against the State, its department, and employees for a failure to
thoroughly and promptly report and investigate incidents of child
abuse. As such, the motion to dismiss against Defendants D.H.S.,
Charles Palmer, Stacy Deberg, and Lori Mulder is granted for failure
of the Plaintiffs to state a claim as there is no cause of action under
Iowa Code § 232.71B or § 232.75.
4
We discern no error in the court’s detailed ruling. See Rees v. City of
Shenandoah, 682 N.W.2d 77, 78 (Iowa 2004) (setting forth standard of review for
dismissal based on failure to state a claim).
The statutory provisions on which Sadler relies do not create a duty on the
part of the department and its employees to report or to abstain from interfering
with reporting child abuse. Those provisions also do not create a civil cause of
action for monetary damages. As the Iowa Supreme Court stated in In re M.H.,
“We believe it is clear that in enacting Iowa Code sections 232.67–.71 and 25A.14
the legislature did not intend to imply a tort action against the State, its department
and employees for a failure to thoroughly and promptly report and investigate
incidents of child abuse.” Cf. 385 N.W.2d at 535–37 (analyzing previously-
numbered sections of the Iowa Code).
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered McCracken v. Iowa
Department of Human Services, 595 N.W.2d 779, 784 (Iowa 1999), in which the
court held the department of human services had the authority to conduct a second
investigation into child abuse allegations following the issuance of an unfounded
report concerning the same conduct. Although the court characterized the cited
statutory provisions as “remedial in nature” and deserving of “liberal construction,”
the court did not go so far as to authorize an independent tort action for failure to
investigate. The court simply considered the issue on judicial review of the
department’s second decision. In In re M.H., the court acknowledged that the
statutory provisions cited in McCracken authorize certain types of civil liability but
declined to expand the statute to encompass the tort causes of action raised by
the plaintiff. 385 N.W.2d at 537. The court stated, “[T]he legislature has explicitly
5
addressed situations when civil liability attaches. If the legislature wanted to
recognize other statutory violations that would produce civil liability, it would have
so indicated.” Id.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.
AFFIRMED.