IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0619
Filed July 6, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF T.B., Z.Y., and C.Y.,
Minor Children,
M.U., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Crystal S.
Cronk, District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s authorization of concurrent
jurisdiction in district court for determination of issues of child custody and
support. AFFIRMED.
John G. Daufeldt of Daufeldt Law Firm, P.L.C., Conroy, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Kathryn J. Salazar of Lamping, Schlegel & Salazar, L.L.P., Washington,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
This appeal concerns three children adjudicated to be children in need of
assistance (CINA) based on their mother’s methamphetamine use.1 The parties
stipulated to the CINA adjudication, and the juvenile court placed Z.Y. and C.Y. in
their father’s care and placed T.B. with a relative. After the State moved to
modify the children’s placement to return them to the mother’s care, the father of
Z.Y. and C.Y. resisted and moved for concurrent jurisdiction to litigate the
children’s custody.2 The juvenile court authorized concurrent jurisdiction to any
of the parents to seek custodial or support orders in district court. The mother
appeals.
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the juvenile court
erred in granting concurrent jurisdiction. During a CINA proceeding, the juvenile
court has exclusive jurisdiction over custody, guardianship, or placement of the
children involved. See Iowa Code § 232.3(1); In re K.R., 537 N.W.2d 774, 777
(Iowa Ct. App. 1995). However, the juvenile court may authorize a party to
litigate the children’s custody concurrently in another court. See Iowa Code
§ 232.3(2). The juvenile court has the legal discretion to authorize concurrent
jurisdiction and must exercise this discretion in the children’s best interests. See
In re R.G., 450 N.W.2d 823, 825 (Iowa 1990).
In his motion, Z.Y. and C.Y.’s father requested concurrent jurisdiction to
pursue physical care of the children. He argued that the mother’s history of
1
Z.Y. and C.Y. share a father, and T.B. has a different father.
2
T.B.’s father objected to the State’s motion. He orally requested concurrent jurisdiction
at the March 7, 2017 dispositional hearing.
3
addiction made it “likely” he would prevail in such a case. He also noted the
children’s need for stability and permanency, arguing concurrent jurisdiction
would allow him to pursue that goal and would therefore be in the children’s best
interests.
The mother resisted the motion, arguing the father “should not be allowed
concurrent jurisdiction in order to seize an opportunity in District Court to
circumnavigate this Juvenile Court’s dispositional authority. Especially, when he
cannot effectively argue in Juvenile Court that allowing him legal custody of the
Minor Children is in their best interests.” However, granting concurrent
jurisdiction does not allow the district court “to enter orders that conflict with or
frustrate the placement that the juvenile court has temporarily established for
purposes of a pending CINA proceeding.” A.B. v. M.B., 569 N.W.2d 103, 104-05
(Iowa 1997). Rather, any custody order entered by a court granted concurrent
jurisdiction only determines custody rights “if and when the juvenile court’s
placement of the children during their CINA status has been rendered of no
further effect by orders of the juvenile court.” Id. at 105.
In its dispositional order regarding Z.Y. and C.Y., the juvenile court found
the least restrictive placement appropriate for the children was for custody to
“remain” placed with the children’s mother. It ordered Z.Y. and C.Y. to remain in
their father’s physical care until June 3, 2017,3 and that the parties establish a
visitation schedule to allow the children meaningful time with both parents during
the summer vacation. It also ordered the Washington County Department of
3
Later separate orders clarify that Z.Y. and C.Y. “shall remain in the physical placement
of [their] father . . . until further hearing on the request for change of placement. The
child[ren] shall remain in [their] father’s care and shall attend school.”
4
Human Services (DHS) to supervise Z.Y. and C.Y.’s placement. The court
granted concurrent jurisdiction for either parent to seek custodial/support orders
in district court.
In its dispositional order regarding T.B., the juvenile court found the least
restrictive placement appropriate for the child was for custody of the child to
“remain” placed with the child’s mother. The court noted the father of T.B.
requested visitation and the mother agreed. The court ordered the DHS to
supervise T.B.’s placement. The court granted concurrent jurisdiction for either
parent to seek custodial and/or support orders in district court.
Although the juvenile court’s dispositional orders do not specifically order
physical placement of the children with the mother,4 the State and guardian ad
litem both recommended transferring care to the mother, indicating both parents
are suitable caregivers even though the purpose of the dispositional order
remain. These are the circumstances under which an order granting concurrent
jurisdiction is appropriate. See In re A.T. & A.D., 799 N.W.2d 148, 153 (Iowa
2011) (“Such an order is appropriate when both parents are suitable caregivers,
but the juvenile court is not yet able to terminate the proceedings because the
purposes of the dispositional order have not been accomplished and the child still
needs supervision, care, or treatment.”). In addition, the DHS recommended the
court grant concurrent jurisdiction, and the guardian ad litem was in agreement.
We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to grant concurrent
jurisdiction. Cf. In re B.G., No. 07-0839, 2007 WL 2119015, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
4
A subsequent ruling on the motion for change of disposition regarding T.B. indicates
“the dispositional order plac[ed] custody of the child with the child’s mother.”
5
July 25, 2007) (holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying a
request for concurrent jurisdiction where the court, in attending to the children’s
best interests, noted that neither parent was in a position to care for the children
at that time).
AFFIRMED.