Opinion
No. 2-179 / 01-0407.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, DONNA L. PAULSEN, Judge.
A grandmother appeals a district court order vacating a guardianship. AFFIRMED.
Bryan J. Tingle and Tamara L. Knight of Tingle, Knight, Webster Juckette, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Nichole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
A grandmother appeals a district court order vacating a guardianship. We affirm.
Isaiah, born September 5, 2000, is the son of Marla and Scott. The mother and father are not married. When Isaiah was born, both his parents were facing serious drug charges and his three other siblings were already under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Because Marla and Scott were facing lengthy prison terms, they began to consider custodial arrangements for Isaiah. Initially, Marla's mother, Nancy, declined to take custody of Isaiah because of health concerns. As a result, the couple requested that Scott's mother, Sandi, care for the child.
On September 19, 2000, Marla filed a petition asking the probate court to appoint Isaiah's paternal grandmother, Sandi, as his guardian. The probate court appointed Sandi as guardian of Isaiah that same day. Isaiah lived with Sandi for only two days. On September 21, 2000, after further discussion with her mother, Marla signed a consent for temporary removal and requested that Isaiah be placed in Nancy's care. The juvenile court, unaware of the guardianship proceedings, entered a removal order and placed Isaiah with his maternal grandmother subject to the supervision of the Department of Human Services (Department).
On September 22, 2000, the State filed a petition alleging Isaiah was a child in need of assistance. Two months later, he was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) by stipulation of all parties, including his guardian. The parties also stipulated Isaiah would remain with his maternal grandmother pending disposition.
On December 14, 2000, Marla filed a petition to set aside the guardianship. All interested parties agreed the dispositional hearing concerning Isaiah pending in juvenile court and the petition to terminate the paternal grandmother's guardianship should be consolidated for hearing. The parties agreed the petition to terminate the guardianship would be addressed first when the hearing was held.
At the consolidated hearing which followed, Isaiah's parents, as well as the Department and the child's court appointed guardian at litem, requested Sandi's guardianship be terminated. Only Sandi believed the guardianship should be continued. Evidence presented to the court suggested Isaiah and his sister were doing well in Nancy's care. The court also heard evidence which suggests that the guardian is not a suitable caretaker for the child. Both parents requested Isaiah's placement with Nancy be continued. The juvenile court found it was in Isaiah's best interests to terminate Sandi's guardianship and continue Isaiah's placement with Nancy under supervision of the Department. The court concluded the guardianship was no longer necessary. After vacating the guardianship, the court held the CINA dispositional hearing and custody of the child was affirmed with the maternal grandmother. Sandi appeals. She contends the court erred when it found clear and convincing evidence to terminate the guardianship. Our review is de novo. In re Guardianship of B.J.P., 613 N.W.2d 670, 671 (Iowa 2000).
Iowa Code section 633.675 (1999) sets forth the grounds for termination of a guardianship. Among other things, the statute provides that a guardianship may be terminated if the court determines that the guardianship is "no longer necessary" for any reason. See Iowa Code § 633.675(4). We conclude, as did the juvenile court, that the guardianship at issue here is no longer necessary and termination of the guardianship will serve Isaiah's best interests. Our de novo review of the record convinces us Isaiah's needs can be more appropriately addressed through the resources and services of the juvenile court. Furthermore, the preference of the child's parents, the admonition against separating siblings, and concerns about the qualifications of his guardian all support termination of the guardianship. Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly terminated the guardianship. We further find the court properly placed Isaiah with his maternal grandmother following the dispositional hearing. The record reveals Nancy is a suitable and appropriate custodian for Isaiah. We find nothing in the record which suggests Isaiah's interests would be served by placement with his guardian.
AFFIRMED.