In the Matter of Guardianship and Conservatorship of M.O., No. 9-863/09-0535 (Iowa App. 11/25/2009), 9-863/09-0535
| Decision Date | 25 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 9-863/09-0535,9-863/09-0535 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF M.O., R.J. and D.J., Petitioners-Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.
R.J. and D.J. appeal an order denying their petition for appointment of an involuntary guardian. AFFIRMED.
Chad Primmer, Council Bluffs, for appellants R.J. and D.J.
Karen Dales, Council Bluffs, for appellee G.O.
DeShawne Bird-Sell, Glenwood, guardian ad litem.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
Randy, the maternal grandfather of Maddison, and his wife Denise appeal the district court order denying their petition for involuntary guardianship. On appeal, Randy and Denise assert the district court erred in finding that Maddison's father, Garrett, is a suitable parent and that it is in Maddison's best interest to remain in his care. We affirm.
Maddison was born August 2006 to Garrett and Kim. At the time, Garrett and Kim did not have sufficient means to support themselves. Therefore, they lived with Kim's father and stepmother, Randy and Denise, in Salisbury, Maryland.
Following Maddison's birth, there was discussion about Randy and Denise becoming guardians of Maddison in order to give Garrett and Kim "a chance to get their life in order, a place to live and steady jobs." However, no formal guardianship was executed.
Rather, in November 2006, Garrett and Kim decided to take Maddison and move to Iowa. Upon arriving in Iowa, Garrett and Kim were able to find their own housing, but continued to struggle to find consistent employment. Their relationship was also very volatile. In August 2007, Kim filed a petition for relief from domestic abuse. In addition, in January 2008, Garrett was charged with domestic abuse assault. Garrett admitted that this assault occurred when he grabbed Kim by her throat and choke-slammed her into a table during an argument. Following the assault, Garrett was ordered to attend anger management therapy and to complete a batterer's education program. However Garrett only attended two therapy sessions and never completed the batterer's education program.1
In August 2008, Kim died unexpectedly from an overdose of prescription medications. In the week following Kim's death, Randy and Denise filed this petition for the guardianship of Maddison.
The case came to trial on February 26, 2009. At trial, Randy and Denise raised several concerns about Garrett and his suitability as a parent for Maddison.
Randy and Denise emphasized Garrett's serious financial problems and asserted he was "lazy." Garrett is unemployed and primarily dependent upon government assistance as a means of support. Randy and Denise also accused Garrett of being financially irresponsible, including buying an X-Box, tattoos, and a ring for his girlfriend using the government aid.
Randy and Denise also stated that Garrett had "failed" in parenting two children he had prior to marrying Kim while living in Maryland. Garrett was shown to be in arrears on child support payments for one child, and had his parental rights terminated to the other child. In addition, at the time of trial, a woman that Garrett started dating following his wife's death alleged that she was pregnant and that Garrett was the father.
They also expressed concerns about Garrett's temperament as a parent. Denise testified that while she talked to Kim on the phone, Garrett "belittled [Maddison] several times" and called her "some very rude names." Further, in addition to the two domestic abuse claims brought by Kim, Garrett was subject to a child abuse assessment in January 2009. In the assessment, Maddison was found to have a bump on her left forehead. Garrett explained that the injury occurred when Maddison bumped her head on the countertop while in the care of Kim's mother. The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) found the allegations of abuse were not confirmed, and stated there was "no indication that the child is being mistreated." DHS also found the "home [was] more than adequate to meet the needs of the child."
Denise further testified that Kim, just prior to her death, was planning on leaving Garrett and returning to Maryland with Maddison to live with Randy and Denise. (Garrett disputed this contention.) Denise also stated that Kim had told her that "if anything ever happened to her, please come get Maddison."
Randy and Denise also stated that they have a home and the means to support Maddison. They testified that they have adopted Kim's other child. Regarding Maddison, Randy explained,
Garrett admitted that he was not "father of the year," but maintained that the evidence did not prove he is unfit as a parent. Specifically, a report prepared by the guardian ad litem stated that although Garrett was "not the greatest man," he appeared "to be providing adequate day-to-day care for Maddison."2 The guardian ad litem described three separate, unannounced visits to Garrett's residence. Each time, the guardian at litem found that Maddison's living conditions and care were adequate. The guardian ad litem concluded that Garrett "cannot be determined . . . to be unsuitable."
Garrett showed that Randy and Denise have not cared for Maddison since she was three months old, and that Randy and Denise have only seen Maddison twice since Garrett and Kim moved to Iowa. Randy conceded that at that this time, Maddison would probably not have any idea who he is. He conceded that if a guardianship were ordered, there would have to be a period of transition involved.
After all the evidence was presented, the district court denied Randy and Denise's petition for guardianship, finding they failed to show that Garrett was an unfit parent, and it was not in the best interest of Maddison to remain in his care, custody, and control. Randy and Denise appeal.
The standard of review as set forth in our case law has been somewhat inconsistent. Iowa law specifically provides that actions for the involuntary appointment of guardians shall be triable in probate as law actions. Iowa Code § 633.33 (2007) (); see also Iowa Code § 633.555 (). "In view of the specific language of these statutes, the legislative intent to provide a trial at law in an involuntary guardianship is clear." In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Wemark, 525 N.W.2d 7, 9 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
In In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of D.D.H., after thoroughly reviewing the statutory language and the precedents, we held that the scope of review for appointment of a guardian of a minor was for errors at law. 538 N.W.2d 881, 882-83 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). We there quoted, among other things, the supreme court's detailed discussion of the subject in In re Guardianship of Murphy, where it held that "any modification to allow de novo review must come from the legislature." D.D.H., 538 N.W.2d at 883 (quoting Murphy, 397 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1986)).
However, a month later, in In re Guardianship of Knell, the supreme court applied a de novo standard of review to a proceeding for appointment of a guardian. 537 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa 1995). The supreme court did not discuss the applicable standard of review in detail, simply citing the parties' agreement3 and In re Guardianship of Stewart, 369 N.W.2d 820, 822 (Iowa 1995). Knell, 537 N.W.2d at 780. Stewart, however, was a termination of guardianship case, not an appointment case. 369 N.W.2d at 821-22. The legislature has mandated that terminations, but not involuntary appointments, be tried in equity. See Iowa Code § 633.33 (); In re Guardianship of B.J.P., 613 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Iowa 2000) ().
Since D.D.H. and Knell were decided, subsequent cases have tended to follow one opinion or the other, thus forming two armadas of ships passing in the night. See, e.g., Northland v. McNamara, 581 N.W.2d 210, 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (); In re Guardianship of Hensley, 582 N.W.2d 189, 190 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (). Making matters somewhat more complicated, in In re Guardianship of Reed, the supreme court acknowledged that "[a]lthough our review is on error, the equitable nature of proceedings for the appointment of a guardian remains." 468 N.W.2d 819, 825 (Iowa 1991). Thus, the court stated "it is indispensable that...
To continue reading
Request your trial