Opinion
No. 2-703 / 02-0176
Filed September 25, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Don E. Courtney, Judge.
A paternal grandmother appeals from an order denying her petition to adopt her granddaughter, and granting the petition of the maternal aunt and uncle to adopt the granddaughter. AFFIRMED.
Bethany Brands of Brands Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Robert Sackett of Sackett Sackett, P.C., Milford, for appellees.
Michael Brown, Emmetsburg, for minor child.
Considered by Hecht, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ. Sackett, C.J., takes no part.
A paternal grandmother appeals from an order denying her petition to adopt her granddaughter, and granting the petition of the maternal aunt and uncle to adopt the child. She contends the district court erred in ruling against her, and in refusing to reopen the record to allow additional evidence. The aunt and uncle brought a motion to strike the Department of Human Services' statement of support in favor of the grandmother. We deny the motion to strike, and we affirm the district court's order granting the aunt and uncle's petition to adopt.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Pam is the mother of Amanda, Alicia, and Shauna. Jim is the father of Amanda and Alicia. Ron is the father of Shauna. After a lengthy involvement with the juvenile court system, Pam, Jim, and Ron's rights to their children were terminated in April 1999. During the proceedings, the girls lived at different times with their maternal aunt and uncle, Dianna and Rod, and a foster mother, Juanita.
After termination, Dianna and Rod and Juanita expressed interest in adopting the children. Amanda and Alicia's paternal grandmother, Barbara, also expressed interest in adopting all three girls. Home studies were ordered on all three homes, and the Department of Human Services recommended that Juanita adopt Alicia and Shauna, while Amanda remain with Juanita as a long-term foster care placement. Juanita filed a petition to adopt Alicia and Shauna in July 2000.
Rod and Dianna were unsuccessful in their efforts to administratively appeal the DHS decision approving Juanita as the adoptive placement. In August 2000, Rod and Dianna filed a petition seeking to adopt all three children. The State, the guardian ad litem, and Juanita all resisted the petition. At Rod and Dianna's request, the district court consolidated Juanita's petition to adopt and Rod and Dianna's petition to adopt into one action.
In late 2000 and early 2001, Amanda and Alicia began to exhibit behavioral problems. The DHS placed Amanda with Barbara in February 2001, ultimately recommending that Barbara adopt Amanda. In March 2001, the DHS placed Alicia with Rod and Dianna.
In July 2001, Juanita amended her adoption petition to seek only the adoption of Shauna. That same month, Barbara filed a petition to intervene in the adoption action, petitions to adopt Amanda and Alicia, and a petition for grandparent visitation. Trial on all three adoption petitions was held July 24 through July 26, 2001.
In December 2001, the State filed a motion to reopen the record, alleging that at Rod and Dianna's request, Alicia moved to Barbara's residence on December 6, 2001. In its January 7, 2002 ruling, the district court denied the motion and granted Juanita's petition to adopt Shauna, Barbara's petition to adopt Amanda, and Rod and Dianna's petition to adopt Alicia.
II. Motion to Reopen the Record. Barbara first contends the district court erred in refusing to reopen the record. Pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.920, the trial court has the authority to allow any party to reopen the record and offer additional evidence. The trial court enjoys wide discretion in ruling on such motions. Neimann v. Butterfield, 551 N.W.2d 652, 655 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). In order to show an abuse of discretion, one generally must show that the court exercised its discretion "on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Wheeler v. Dental East, P.C., 494 N.W.2d 248, 250 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).
We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's motion to reopen the record. The record regarding the new evidence is bare. Although the district court's reasoning in denying the motion is not without question, from the totality of the record we have before us we cannot find the district court's decision was clearly unreasonable.
III. Adoption. Barbara next asserts the district court erred in denying her petition to adopt Alicia, and instead granting the petition of Rod and Dianna. She argues placement is more appropriate with her because Alicia and Amanda would be placed together, Alicia expressed a preference for living with her, and she can provide an adequate and appropriate home.
We review orders on adoption proceedings de novo. Iowa Code § 600.14 (2001). We give weight to the findings of the trial court but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). The central and controlling consideration is what is best for Alicia. In re L.B.T., 318 N.W.2d 200, 201 (Iowa 1982).
The district court found adoption by Rod and Dianna was in Alicia's best interest. Although siblings should be kept together whenever possible, id. at 202, the district court found compelling reasons for separating Amanda and Alicia. Essentially, Amanda is manipulative and exerts a negative influence over Alicia. Although the sisters are not living in the same home, they live in the same rural Iowa town, which allows the sisters to have a continued relationship.
Barbara argues the district court should have given great weight to Alicia's expressed desire to live with her. During the adoption proceedings, Alicia was twelve years old. Her consent to adoption was not statutorily required. Iowa Code § 600.7(1). Barbara does not cite any authority to support her argument that the district court should have given great weight to Alicia's preference. Furthermore, the record indicates that Alicia frequently changed her mind regarding with whom she wanted to live. She indicated to the court she was confused. Accordingly, the district court was not required to give her statement that she wished to live with Barbara great weight.
While the district court was convinced Barbara loved the children and would do whatever she could for them, the court expressed concerns regarding the size of her apartment and her dependence on others to assist her with transportation. Barbara is also disabled and living on public assistance. Conversely, Rod and Dianna offer Alicia the advantages of a two-parent family and a larger home.
We find it is in Alicia's best interest that she be placed with Rod and Dianna. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.