In the Interest of A.T.
799 N.W.2d 148
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DHS became involved April 2001–April 2003 due to the mother’s meth use and mental health issues; the three children were adjudicated CINA and removed but later returned to the mother
- The children have different fathers; A.T. and A.D. are the subject of the appeal, while T.M. lives with his father by his own choice
- A relapse in July 2009 led to emergency removal of the children; Kevin (A.D.’s father) and Jon (A.T.’s father) remained involved with the children’s custody arrangements
- In 2009–2010, dispositional orders placed A.T. with Jon and A.D. with Kevin; a dissolution decree later fixed custody for A.T. with Jon, while A.D.’s custody remained with Kevin
- On January 18, 2011, a combined permanency/review/modification hearing sought permanency orders for both children; the DHS report acknowledged the mother’s sobriety but highlighted a long history of illegal drug use, recommending permanency with the fathers
- On February 11, 2011, the juvenile court issued a permanency order placing A.D. with his father and closed A.T.’s case; the mother appeals arguing lack of authority to enter permanency and improper burden-shifting; the court reverses the A.D. permanency portion and affirms the A.T. case’s disposition as outside the court’s authority
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for permanency—was burden properly allocated to the mother? | Mother asserts the state must prove inability to return home, not she prove return | State contends the context requires consideration of home and past reunification efforts | Permanency order not authorized where child never left home; burden not properly set; reversed for A.D. |
| Authority to award permanency for A.T.—could the court grant permanency for A.T.? | Mother sought permanent custody to herself | District dissolution decree fixed custody with Jon; juvenile court lacked authority to grant permanency | Court lacked authority to fix permanency for A.T.; A.T.’s case affirmed as closed |
| Effect of concurrent jurisdiction—did the court properly use concurrent jurisdiction to manage custody/visitation? | Mother seeks district court action under concurrent jurisdiction | Concurrent jurisdiction appropriate when both parents suitable, but not a predeterminate custody decision | Concurrent jurisdiction permitted; reversal confined to permanencyFix; custody/visitation stay as dispositional order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa Ct.App.2005) (de novo review of permanency orders; weight given to juvenile court findings)
- In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2003) (review standard; paramount child’s best interests)
- In re S.V., 395 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa Ct.App.1986) (child may have two homes; limitations on custody transfer under permanency orders)
- In re A.B., 569 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 1997) (concurrent jurisdiction for custody/placement when both parents suitable)
- In re R.G., 450 N.W.2d 823 (Iowa 1990) (discretion and best interests govern concurrent litigation decisions)