R.G., In Interest of, 89-870

• Decision Date: 24 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-870,89-870
• Citation: 450 N.W.2d 823
• Parties: In the Interest of R.G., A Child, Appeal of M.H. and L.H.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 823

450 N.W.2d 823

In the Interest of R.G., A Child,

Appeal of M.H. and L.H.

No. 89-870.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 24, 1990.

Steven M. Egli of Hagemann, Goeke & Egli, Waverly, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Gordon E. Allen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State of Iowa.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and CARTER, LAVORATO, NEUMAN and ANDREASEN, JJ.

ANDREASEN, Justice.

We have a unified trial court called the "Iowa District Court," and within it there is a "juvenile court." Iowa Code §§ 602.6101, .7101 (1987). The juvenile court, through district judges, associate judges, and referees, exercises exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings commenced under chapter 232. Iowa Code §§ 602.7101, .7103. In this consolidated appeal from rulings of the juvenile court and the district court, our focus is on the statutory provision for concurrent court proceedings. Iowa Code § 232.3. We believe the juvenile court and the district court properly interpreted and applied the provision. We affirm the rulings of both courts.

R.G. was born in 1984. In 1986, the juvenile court for Chickasaw county transferred custody of R.G. to the Iowa Department of Human Services (department) for placement in foster care. The department placed the child with M.H. and L.H. The parental rights of R.G.'s natural parents were terminated in October 1987, and the juvenile court referee appointed M.H. and L.H. guardians and custodians of the child. The guardians expressed interest in adopting R.G. at that time. R.G.'s mother--a cousin of M.H.--testified she would like them to adopt R.G. The referee would review progress made toward adoption in December, and it appeared that in a short time R.G. would be adopted by the guardians.

At the December review hearing the referee was informed that the guardians had initiated adoption proceedings, and another review hearing was scheduled to be held in June 1988. Actually, no adoption proceedings had been initiated. In addition, a child abuse report to Floyd county authorities in December revealed that L.H. had slapped R.G. on his face and neck leaving marks. Further investigation revealed that the guardians were having serious marital problems. L.H. no longer wanted R.G. in the home. M.H., concerned about R.G.'s safety, left R.G. with his (M.H.'s) mother during the day.

In February, the guardians signed a voluntary placement agreement with the department's Floyd county office, and R.G. was placed in another foster home. They began receiving marital counseling. Chickasaw county authorities advised the guardians to reach a decision about adoption by early March, but they wanted more time. They were busy with taxes, vacation, and marital issues, and could not give the adoption issue the needed attention. When these events came to the attention of the Chickasaw county juvenile referee, the July review hearing was rescheduled for May.

Prior to the hearing, the guardians contacted the department's Floyd county office: they would relinquish guardianship and would not adopt R.G. if they were assured visitation rights. Without the assurance, they would rather adopt R.G. than never see him again. The department could not assure them of visitation rights. Soon after, the guardians revoked the voluntary placement agreement and R.G. was returned to their home.

The review hearing was held on May 31, 1988. On June 2, the juvenile court referee transferred guardianship and custody of R.G. to the department. The referee concluded that the transfer was in R.G.'s best interests. On June 6, M.H. and L.H. obtained a stay pending review of the referee's decision by a juvenile court judge. On the same day, they filed a petition to adopt in the district court for Chickasaw county. On June 9, juvenile court judge James L. Beeghly adopted the referee's findings, judgment and order, and set aside the stay. No appeal was taken, and R.G. was placed in another home.

While the adoption petition was pending, the department reviewed other families interested in adopting R.G. Eventually, another family was chosen. M.H. and L.H. exercised visitation rights during this time, and an adoptive parents home study of their family, ordered by the district court, was completed.

On April 3, 1989, the home study was filed in the district court. On the same day, M.H. and L.H. filed in the adoption action an application to compel placement of R.G. with them. The department responded with a motion to quash the application, challenging the authority of the district court to compel placement where the juvenile court had ordered the child removed. The court agreed with the department.

In its ruling, filed on May 1, the court concluded that Iowa Code section 232.3 governs concurrent court proceedings. That section provides, in part:

1. During the pendency of an action under this chapter, a party to the action is estopped from litigating concurrently the custody, guardianship, or placement of a child who is the subject of the action, in a court other than the juvenile court. A district judge, district associate judge, magistrate, or judicial hospitalization referee, upon notice of the pendency of an action under this chapter, shall not issue an order, finding, or decision relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child who is the subject of the action, under any law, including but not limited to chapter 598, 598A or 633.

2. The juvenile court with jurisdiction of the pending action under this chapter, however, may, upon the request of a party to the action or its own motion, authorize the party to litigate concurrently in another court a specific issue relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child who is the subject of the action....

The court based its decision on the provisions of section 232.3(1) prohibiting it from issuing an order relating to placement of a child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile...