In the interest of E.D.
2012 Iowa App. LEXIS 117
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother and child E.D. moved from Tennessee to Iowa in January 2011.
- May 20, 2011, Iowa juvenile court issued emergency removal due to mother's drug use and poor supervision.
- May 25, 2011, State filed a CINA petition asserting Iowa as home state; later conceded Iowa was not home state at filing.
- August 4, 2011, adjudication hearing; court requested temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA § 598B.204.
- August 29, 2011, court adjudicated E.D. as a CINA under emergency jurisdiction; October 11, 2011, dispositional order placed with maternal step-great grandparents.
- Mother appealed, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction; court held it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate and dispositional orders and remanded to dismiss CINA petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction based on ground not alleged | Mother argues court cannot rely on unpleaded ground. | State sought temporary emergency jurisdiction under § 598B.204. | Court below did not have jurisdiction on unalleged ground; remanded. |
| Authority to adjudicate CINA and issue disposition | State alleges Iowa home state and emergency basis to adjudicate and dispositionalize E.D. | Emergency jurisdiction permitted temporary orders pending proper forum. | Temporary emergency jurisdiction could not support permanent CINA adjudication or disposition; lacked jurisdiction; reversed and remanded with dismissal. |
| Temporary emergency vs. permanent determination | Emergency order could become final if appropriate. | Emergency order was intended temporary pending proper jurisdiction. | Emergency order did not specify it could become a final determination; six months had not elapsed to confer home-state status. |
| Home state analysis and Tennessee communications | Iowa not home state; Tennessee may have jurisdiction if properly communicated. | Court should communicate with Tennessee and defer if Tennessee declines. | Court failed to communicate with Tennessee; jurisdiction improper; remand to determine if Tennessee will exercise. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Deal-Burch, 759 N.W.2d 341 (Iowa Ct.App.2008) (de novo review of jurisdictional issues; dismiss if lacking jurisdiction)
- In re Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001) (subject matter jurisdiction must be determined; authority to proceed)
- State v. Lasley, 705 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2005) (courts have duty to determine existence of subject matter jurisdiction)
- In re Jorge G., 164 Cal.App.4th 125 (Cal.App.2008) (emergency jurisdiction not for permanent custody; temporary only)
- In re D.N.H.W., 955 So.2d 1236 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007) (emergency jurisdiction does not authorize initial permanent custody)
- In re A.L.H., 630 A.2d 1288 (Vt.1993) (emergency jurisdiction does not create permanent custody)