In the Interest of T.B., Z.Y., and C.Y., Minor Children, M.U., Mother
17-0619
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Three children were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) based on the mother’s methamphetamine use; the parties stipulated to adjudication.
- Juvenile court initially placed Z.Y. and C.Y. in their father’s physical care and T.B. with a relative, with DHS supervision and dispositional goals favoring the mother as the least restrictive custodian.
- The State moved to change placement to return the children to the mother; Z.Y. and C.Y.’s father opposed and moved for concurrent jurisdiction to pursue physical care in district court.
- The juvenile court granted concurrent jurisdiction to either parent to seek custody or support orders in district court, while maintaining the existing supervised placements pending resolution.
- DHS and the guardian ad litem recommended granting concurrent jurisdiction; the mother appealed the juvenile court’s authorization of concurrent jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred in granting concurrent jurisdiction to allow parents to seek custody/support orders in district court | Granting concurrent jurisdiction would let father circumvent juvenile-court dispositional authority; father cannot show in juvenile court that awarding him custody is in the children’s best interests | Concurrent jurisdiction is appropriate because father is likely to prevail and needs to pursue stability/permanency; both parents are suitable caregivers | Affirmed. Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; concurrent jurisdiction proper where both parents are suitable caregivers but juvenile purposes remain unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.R., 537 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (juvenile court generally has exclusive jurisdiction over custody during CINA proceedings)
- In re R.G., 450 N.W.2d 823 (Iowa 1990) (juvenile court must exercise discretion to authorize concurrent jurisdiction in the children’s best interests)
- A.B. v. M.B., 569 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 1997) (concurrent-jurisdiction custody orders do not override juvenile court placements during CINA status)
- In re A.T. & A.D., 799 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa 2011) (concurrent jurisdiction appropriate when both parents are suitable but juvenile dispositional purposes remain unresolved)