Within the Iowa case, the accused/substantiated parent proceeded to file in what appeared to be another court system in Iowa, after the initial ruling in the CPS/HHS family court.
Mandated child abuse reporting began to be widely instated in states in the middle 1980's. https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm This describes reports, who is mandated, what it means, what fabricated reports are, what retaliatory reports are... all from a federal standard of definition. Not all states have all these resouces, tools, policy, custom or law in place about child sex abuse reporting.
Problems with CPS/HHS systems have their own process. And issues with a state CPS/HHS is supposed to be in oversight from the federal group Administration to Children and Families, except that a federal law prohibits thehttp://www.examiner.com/article/understand-which-federal-law-must-change... ACF from any right to impose requirements on the state.
Every state has a system of juvenile issue ombudsman, paid for by state funds, who is supposed to monitor some agencies for some issues, but who also has no power in the state. This is an older PDF, but it does profile the questions of this kind of a role, and not all states have this. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204607.pdf These groups are appointed sometimes in care, but it seems often in response to more eyes needed on a case issue.... as with the systems induced trauma questions introduced about the Florida CPS/HHS systems earlier this year. http://www.examiner.com/article/systems-induced-trauma-lynchpins-just-wh...
There is a sort of lay of the land for contested issues of decisions including or led by CPS/HHS decisions on child sex abuse reports.
Per that news blurb at the beginning of this series, a second attorney was retained for this process.
The non-abusing parent was taken to task about custody and through some process the identified witness for the inbound reporting was disintegrated. The news blurb says that a variety of things happened, many of which people talk about in complex child custody case.
1.) that the initial report is diluted or removed
2.) this is done typically by a "professional" or process stating that the reporting party is somehow improper in the report, or unstable in mental health. So the witness was obliterated, as any usable resource for the case, and this rolled retroactive a generation. (!) or more.
3.) the judge in the case hears what public listeners deem limited, biased or no evidence
4.) for some reason, and it is not clear if this is policy, custom or law a statement that CPS will not be part of the court process as an acting party may be made.
4.a) the CPS staff may be present and report in the court but in the Iowa case, it appears they were not present, were not allowed to speak, and did not speak on the case.
5.) the judge identified that the first case was improper some how, though it appears to be state run, not civil.
6.) the judge completely reversed most if not all the prior court decisions
7.) the judge per reports appeared to admonish all involved in decision #1.
8.) the judge used personal experience with the subjects on the table to make the ruling
9.) the judge advised either in the ruling or after, that the CPS/HHS and ALL service providers involved in case #1 had to shred and remove from any record (?) the prior complaints, evidence, substantiations and decisions.
10) this appears to have been true the judge took an action against the witness, an action against the State in a case against a civilian, and then an action which put the children directly in the path of harms way, with the decision to reverse whatever from case #1.
That is a lot. This writer may have missed some things, but that is the cliff notes version.
So the alleged, identified abusing parent was reinstated all privileges and rights over the two girls, whose reported multiple utterances were corroborated complaints by multiple professional and social entities. Parent against parent in the civil case, ( case #2) addressing State to parent in the first case ( case #1). How can that be? Is this an accurate observation?
The news blurb relates the questions and surprise often accompanying such a sweeping undoing of a boundary. However, some cases never get protections like #1. Some go back and forth in minutiae for years. The Iowa case has markers indicating who was involved on both sides in the intake/response/court and then the undoing.
That's case #2 in court as it relates to this pending question.