In the Interest of P.S., Minor Child
22-0077
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2022Background
- P.S. (age five) was removed from his maternal grandmother in Oct 2020 and adjudicated a CINA in Dec 2020; custody placed with DHS.
- Father (P.F.) lives in Cincinnati, Ohio; contacts and visitation were limited (in-person and Zoom), with some regression in P.S. after an overnight visit.
- Father has an extensive criminal history (multiple Ohio felonies/misdemeanors and 2016 Iowa misdemeanors) and was reluctant to disclose it to caseworkers; he also uses aliases.
- An Ohio home study approved the father’s residence for placement but described it as a "transitional place"; father works as an over-the-road trucker; the child’s counselor recommended against placement with father given limited relationship.
- Juvenile court found (1) child could not be returned to either parent, (2) DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and (3) termination of parental rights would not be in P.S.’s best interest; it therefore established a guardianship with the maternal aunt to preserve stability, school continuity, and sibling/extended-family bonds.
- Father appealed the permanency order arguing P.S. should be placed in his care and that the court failed to afford proper weight to parental preference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court properly established a guardianship under Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d) rather than placing P.S. with the father | Father: P.S. should be placed in my care; parental preference favors placement with parent | State/DHS: Guardianship with maternal aunt better serves P.S.’s best interests; statutory prerequisites for guardianship are met | Affirmed: guardianship proper because child could not be returned, services were offered, and termination was not in child’s best interest |
| Whether the parental-preference rule required placement with the father or was rebutted | Father: Court failed to adequately consider parental preference in favor of placement with me | State/DHS: Parental preference is rebuttable and is rebutted here due to limited parent–child bond, instability, criminal history, residence and work concerns | Held: Parental preference rebutted; best interest favors guardianship with maternal aunt |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.A.G., 708 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa Ct. App.) (standard of review and weight given juvenile court findings)
- In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793 (Iowa) (child’s best interest as guiding principle)
- In re L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa) (parental preference recognized but rebuttable in guardianship contexts)
- In re Guardianship of Stewart, 369 N.W.2d 820 (Iowa) (parental preference can be overcome when parent has abandoned responsibilities)