In the Matter of the Guardianship of S.K.M., Jared McTaggart, Interested Party-Father of Minor child/appellant, Eric J. Metz and Christina M. Metz, Guardians of Minor child/appellees.
16-1537
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Jared Mctaggart (father) and Stephanie are parents of S.K.M., born 2007; Stephanie placed the child with maternal grandparents Eric and Christie Metz in 2009 and the juvenile court appointed them guardians after Jared did not participate in that proceeding.
- Jared maintained contact (regular phone and periodic in-person visits), paid child support, and pursued employment moves; the Metzes previously filed to terminate parental rights but the juvenile court denied that petition and this court affirmed.
- Jared filed a petition in April 2014 to terminate the grandparents’ guardianship so he could assume custody once financially stable; trial occurred in 2016 while Jared was pursuing work and a house near the child.
- The district court denied Jared’s petition, finding the parental preference was weakened by Jared’s default at the initial guardianship proceeding and concluding the Metzes overcame the presumption or, alternatively, no substantial change warranted modification.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Jared had standing, the parental preference remained intact, the Metzes failed to prove Jared unfit by clear and convincing evidence, and the guardianship must be terminated and custody returned to Jared.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jared) | Defendant's Argument (Metzes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to petition to terminate guardianship | Father has standing as parent to seek termination of guardianship over minor | Only the ward may petition under §633.679(1); parents lack standing | Court: Parent has standing to seek termination of minor’s guardianship |
| Standard of review | Errors at law (guardianship actions are law actions) | Same | Court: Review for errors at law applies |
| Parental-preference burden | Parental preference applies; grandparents must prove parent unfit by clear and convincing evidence to continue guardianship | Grandparents argue the presumption was lessened because father defaulted in initial guardianship and they overcame it | Court: Default/consent guardianship did not waive presumption; grandparents failed to prove Jared unfit by clear and convincing evidence |
| Remedy — termination of guardianship | Terminate guardianship and return custody to father | Continue guardianship as in child’s best interest | Court: Reverse district court; remand to enter order terminating guardianship |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (recognizing parental right to raise children)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (parental primacy in child upbringing)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Due Process protects parental decisions; state interference requires showing of unfitness)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (state may not interfere with family unit absent a showing of unfitness)
- Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2001) (Iowa constitutional limits on grandparent visitation statutes; requires threshold finding of parental unfitness)
- In re Marriage of Howard, 661 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2003) (statute unconstitutional where it failed to require parental unfitness before state intervention)