Opinion
No. 5-091 / 04-0085
Filed May 11, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Denver D. Dillard, Judge.
Victoria Grahlman appeals a relocation restriction in the district court's ruling appointing her guardian of Ida Mae Grahlman. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
Steven Howes of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Steven Egli of Hagemann, Goeke, Egli Thalacker, Waverly, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
This case pits a stepmother who wishes to take her stepchild out-of-state against a grandfather who wishes to have the child remain close to relatives in Iowa. On our de novo review, we reverse a relocation restriction imposed by the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Ida Mae Grahlman lived in Cedar Rapids, Iowa with her father, stepmother, and four half-siblings. She had minimal contact with her mother, a Mexican national, who was deported shortly after giving birth to her.
When Ida Mae was three years old, she lost her father and one of her half-sisters in a house fire. Her stepmother, Victoria Reed-Grahlman, petitioned to have herself appointed guardian and conservator. Within days, Ida Mae's paternal grandfather, Dale Grahlman, moved to intervene. At the same time, he proffered his own guardianship and conservatorship petition. The district court granted the motion to intervene and, following a hearing, appointed Victoria guardian and Dale conservator. This aspect of the court's ruling is not seriously contested.
Dale states, "we have accepted the court's determination [concerning appointment of Victoria as guardian], but only so long as Victoria complies with the limits of her guardianship and cooperates, as she testified she would, with contact between the Grahlman family and Ida Marie." Dale has not cross-appealed from the court's ruling on the guardianship, and, with the exception of this sentence, does not argue that a changein guardianship is warranted. Therefore, we decline to address this portion of the court's decision.
Another portion of the court's ruling is at issue: a provision restricting Victoria from moving outside the State of Iowa without first obtaining court approval. The restriction was imposed in light of Victoria's expressed intent to move to Idaho. On appeal, Victoria cites "legitimate reasons" for wanting to relocate and asserts her move would not jeopardize Ida Mae's relationship with her grandfather and other paternal relatives. Dale responds that a move would "relegate them to remote relatives with infrequent contacts."
II. Relocation Restriction
The propriety of a guardian's request to move a child from one state to another turns on whether the move is in the child's best interests and whether the request is in good faith. See In re D.N., 522 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Iowa 1994) (stating in connection with determination of child's county of legal settlement that "[a] guardian may change the residence of a ward to another state if done in good faith and for the best interest of the ward"); Carrick v. Stoddard, 250 Iowa 1181, 1188, 98 N.W.2d 315, 320 (1959) (noting nonresident of State may serve as guardian if "interests of the child will thereby be promoted"); In re Waite, 190 Iowa 182, 187, 180 N.W. 159, 161 (1920) ("A guardian of the person of an infant stands in loco parentis, and may, if for the best interests of the infant, change his residence from one state to another.")
Both parties also cite Iowa Code section 633.635(2) (2003), which sets forth the powers of a guardian that require court approval. That section provides,
2. A guardian may be granted the following powers which may only be exercised upon court approval:
a. Changing, at the guardian's request, the ward's permanent residence if the proposed new residence is more restrictive of the ward's liberties than the current residence.
Iowa Code § 633.635(2). This provision is not particularly helpful, because the record does not suggest Ida Mae's new residence would be more restrictive of her liberties than her current home.
We begin with Ida Mae's best interests. The parties did not dispute that Victoria was the only mother Ida Mae knew and that Ida Mae had a strong bond with her half-sisters. They also did not dispute that Ida Mae flourished in Victoria's care. The only significant concern about Victoria was her poor judgment on financial issues, a concern that the Court resolved by having Dale, rather than Victoria, serve as conservator.
It is those financial issues that, in part, prompted Victoria to consider a move to Idaho. She was close to completion of a phlebotomy program in Cedar Rapids at the time of the fire. She did not complete the program. She testified that the State of Idaho would pay for her to complete a more extensive phlebotomy program, as she had graduated from an Idaho high school. In light of this financial incentive, Victoria enrolled in the Idaho program, paid six months advance rent on a three-bedroom town home, enrolled her daughters in school and Ida Mae in preschool, and located a future employment opportunity.
Victoria also expressed other reasons for moving. She testified,
I have extended family there, I have friends there, and I feel that I need to do something for myself and my children to give us a fresh start to maybe move away from some of the old memories that are here, painful or happy or otherwise and try to move on and build a new life for the girls, a new strong life.
Turning to the Grahlman family, there is no question they love Ida Mae and genuinely wish to maintain contact with her. We are not convinced that a relocation restriction is the answer.
Prior to her father's death, Ida Mae's contact with her grandparents was fairly limited. Dale admitted this was unlikely to change. Although he requested guardianship of the child, he conceded he would not be able to care for Ida Mae on a full-time basis. He anticipated that his daughter or his deceased son's former wife would become primary caretaker. He envisioned visits with the child once a month or every other month in addition to social gatherings "at our place at Thanksgiving or 2 or 3 times a year." He also acknowledged that he spent winters in Arizona rather than at his Iowa home.
Other paternal relatives also had little contact with Ida Mae. The record does not suggest their level of participation in her life would increase.
We conclude Victoria's move to Idaho is in Ida Mae's best interests. The move would enhance Victoria's economic circumstances and afford her a new start in the face of tragic events.
In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge that Victoria's intentions in planning the move may not have been entirely pure; Ida Mae's paternal relatives were not fond of Victoria and a move allowed her to escape their dictates. As the district court stated:
[Victoria's] decision to move to Idaho was to avoid or limit the scrutiny of Dale Grahlman and the Grahlman family while keeping custody of Ida Mae. In all other respects, this court believes that Victoria's petition and decisions have been made in good faith and with the best interests of Ida Mae in mind.
While we agree with this finding, we believe Victoria's desire to distance herself from Ida Mae's paternal relatives was mitigated by her willingness to facilitate visitation with them. She stated it was important to maintain ties with Ida Mae's paternal relatives
[b]ecause that's her family, they're our family and they've been a part of her life and we all share a certain part of [her father and half-sister] and I don't think that it's necessary that we should have to lose everybody just because this tragedy happened in our lives.
Her testimony is supported by her conduct during these proceedings. She afforded Dale and others visits with Ida Mae and went so far as to reschedule visits that were missed.
The record also suggests that Dale had the time and resources to engage in long-distance visitation. While he asserted his wife's dialysis treatments would make it "awfully hard" to visit Idaho, he admitted that they would simply need to make arrangements for those treatments near Victoria's new home.
We conclude visitation would adequately serve the purposes of the relocation restriction under these circumstances. Cf. In re Guardianship of Ankeney, 360 N.W.2d 733, 738 (Iowa 1985) (affirming grandparent visitation order as in best interests of child); In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Iowa 1983) ("There is no hint in this record that Virginia's move is motivated by a desire to defeat Carl's visitation. . . ."); In re Marriage of Lower, 269 N.W.2d 822, 826 (Iowa 1978) ("In the light of the willingness of the petitioner to maintain respondent's visitation rights with Michael and the beneficial possibilities of the relocation, or at least the lack of detriment, the order of the trial court restraining the petitioner from removing with Michael from the state of Iowa must be reversed."); In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 238 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000) ("The Iowa courts . . . have recognized how mobile our society is and have been reluctant to limit a custodial parent to a geographic area where there is evidence that the custodial parent has valid economic reasons for moving and the move is not predicated on an attempt to limit visitation. . . .").
III. Disposition
We affirm the portion of the district court ruling appointing Victoria guardian and Dale conservator. We reverse the portion of the district court ruling prohibiting Victoria from relocating without court approval.