In the Interest of G.C., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of G.C., Minor Child (In the Interest of G.C., Minor Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0293 Filed May 13, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF G.C., Minor Child,
E.C., Mother, Appellant,
S.C., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
District Associate Judge.
Parents separately appeal a permanency order transferring guardianship
and custody of their child to a suitable other. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Julie A. Forsyth of Forsythe Law Office, PLLC, Winterset, for appellant
mother.
Bryan J. Tingle, Des Moines, for appellant father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Tara M. Elcock of Elcock Law Firm, PLC, Indianola, attorney and guardian
ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ. 2
MULLINS, Judge.
Parents separately appeal a permanency order transferring guardianship
and custody of their child, born in 2004, to a suitable other pursuant to Iowa Code
section 232.104(2)(d)(1) (2018). Both parents argue the court should have instead
directed the State to institute termination proceedings under section 232.104(2)(c).
In other words, the parents wish for their parental rights to be terminated. The
child objects to termination, and the State and guardian ad litem believe
termination would not be in the best interests of the child.
Following a permanency hearing, the court is required to take one of various
actions. See Iowa Code § 232.104(2). Those actions include, among others,
transferring guardianship and custody of the child to suitable others or directing
the State or child’s attorney to initiate termination proceedings. Id. § 232.104(2)(c),
(d)(1), (3). An order for the former requires a judicial determination that such an
arrangement would be the best permanency plan for the child. See id.
§ 232.104(3). Determining the best permanency plan for a child is a best-interests
assessment. Likewise, clear and convincing evidence must show that termination
would be contrary to the child’s best interests, services were offered to alleviate
the need for removal, and the child cannot be returned to the parental home. Id.
§ 232.104(4).
Upon our de novo review, see In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa 2003),
we agree with the juvenile court that transfer of guardianship to suitable others is
the best permanency option, termination would be contrary to the child’s best
interests, services were offered to alleviate the need for removal, and the child 3
cannot be returned to the parental home. We affirm without further opinion
pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of G.C., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-gc-minor-child-iowactapp-2020.