Opinion
No. 3-641 / 03-1119
Filed August 27, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Jane Mylrea, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Mother and maternal grandparents appeal a juvenile court order denying the maternal grandparents' application for concurrent jurisdiction and removing one child, E.O., from the home of the maternal grandparents. AFFIRMED.
Monica Ackley, Dubuque, for appellant Mother. Robert Sabers, Dubuque, for the Father of E.O.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Jean Becker, Assistant Dubuque County Attorney, for appellee State.
Jeff H., East Dubuque, Illinois, Father of S.T., pro se.
Jennifer Clemens-Conlon, of Reynolds Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant.
Mary Kelley, Assistant Public Defender, Dubuque, guardian ad litem for children.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
A parent and grandparents appeal two juvenile court orders entered in a child in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Bobbi, a recovering methamphetamine addict, has three children, Shana, Elijah, and Ricki Jo. All four had been living with Bobbi's parents since 1999. In April 2003, Bobbi relapsed and was ordered to vacate the home of her parents. The juvenile court temporarily placed the children in the care of Bobbi's parents.
Prior to the temporary removal hearing, Nick, the father of Elijah, sought to have his son placed with him. Bobbi and her parents resisted. After considering testimony from Bobbi's mother as well as argument from all interested parties, the juvenile court granted Nick's request and placed Elijah with him. The court also granted his motion for concurrent jurisdiction in the district court "for purpose of the parties' determination of custody, visitation, child support, etc. . . ."
Meanwhile, the grandparents filed their own motion for concurrent jurisdiction to permit the filing of a guardianship petition in district court. The juvenile court denied their motion.
They also moved to intervene in the juvenile court proceedings. The juvenile court granted this unopposed motion.
The grandparents and mother appeal these orders, contending the juvenile court did not act in the children's best interest when it denied their motion for concurrent jurisdiction and placed Elijah with his father.
II. Grandparents' Motion for Concurrent Jurisdiction
A party to a pending child in need of assistance action may seek permission to "litigate concurrently in another court a specific issue relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child who is the subject of the action." Iowa Code § 232.3(2) (2001). In denying the grandparents' concurrent jurisdiction motion, the juvenile court stated:
At this time the Court finds that concurrent jurisdiction regarding Shana and Ricki Jo would be premature as consideration of reunification efforts and permanency issues shall be determined by this Court, particularly involving Ricki Jo in a few months regarding age and the Federal mandates. The Court finds permanency in the form of adoption is preferred, and the Court has concerns regarding the use of guardianship in this case as not being a permanent best interest determination. The father of Elijah has priority in placement and appears to be cooperating with services, although concerns were addressed to the Court regarding past domestic violence.
On our de novo review, we see no reason to disturb this ruling. The court expressly considered the children's best interests, noting that adoption was preferable to a guardianship. See In re R.G., 450 N.W.2d 823, 825 (Iowa 1990) (stating ruling on motion should focus on child's best interests). The record also supports the court's finding that Nick was cooperative with services. A Department of Human Services ("Department") report noted that Nick submitted to drug screens to refute allegations that he abused drugs, and the drug screens were negative. In addition, the guardian ad litem reported that she visited Nick's home and determined it was appropriate. It is worth noting that a court appointed special advocate did not have the same success in making contact with Nick. However, we are not convinced Nick's apparent recalcitrance is currently grounds for authorizing the commencement of a guardianship proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's decision to deny the grandparents' motion for concurrent jurisdiction.
III. Placement with Father
The grandparents next contend Elijah should not have been placed with Nick. They point to Nick's history of drug use and domestic abuse and his willingness to use corporal punishment. The juvenile court addressed these concerns by requiring random drug screens and drop-ins at Nick's home, and by prohibiting any form of corporal punishment.
After this order was entered, a Department employee reported that Nick was using "appropriate discipline, routine and schedules. . . ." She stated "[d]rop-ins" were made and there were no concerns. She also reported that Elijah had adjusted well, and was "happy and talkative." Notably, Elijah exercised visitation with his father prior to the commencement of these proceedings and lived with his father as an infant and toddler.
We recognize that Elijah expressed a desire to live with his grandparents when a court appointed special advocate asked his preference. We also acknowledge that this placement has resulted in a separation of siblings, causing confusion if not trauma to Elijah and his older sister. However, the juvenile court again addressed these concerns by ordering regular visitation between the siblings, including overnight visits with the grandparents. We conclude the juvenile court is currently in the best position to monitor the situation and determine what is in Elijah's best interests.
IV. Disposition
We affirm the juvenile court orders denying the grandparents' motion for concurrent jurisdiction and placing Elijah with his father.