IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0175 Filed July 2, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF E.D. and J.C.
T.D., Mother-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order establishing a guardianship for her
minor children. AFFIRMED.
Sandra C. Johnson of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, and Heidi
Miller (until withdrawal) of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville, for
appellant mother.
T.J., Ankeny, self-represented appellee.
M.G., Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Annie Von Gillern of van Gillern Law Firm, PLC, Urbandale, attorney for
minor child E.D.
Charlotte Sucik of Abendroth & Russell Law Firm, Urbandale, attorney for
minor child J.C.
Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and
Bower, S.J.* 2
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 3
BOWER, Senior Judge.
The mother of E.D., born in 2008, and J.C., born in 2010, appeals from a
juvenile court order establishing a guardianship over the children. The mother
claims the statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian have not been
met. Because there is clear and convincing evidence the mother demonstrated a
lack of consistent parental participation in the children’s lives, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In December 2020, the mother left her children, then ten and twelve years
old, with the children’s maternal grandmother, T.J., and maternal great-
grandmother, M.G., for what was supposed to be “four weeks.”1 The mother lived
in Arizona and then in Georgia, but she did not return to Iowa. In February 2023,
T.J. and M.G. petitioned to be appointed as guardians of the children on an
involuntary basis. The court appointed T.J. and M.G. temporary guardians of the
children.
After several continuances, which were granted at the mother’s request, the
matter came before the court in September. The mother asked for the children to
“go back home with me to Georgia where they belong.” According to the mother,
“[t]hat was me and my children’s plan,” but the children stayed in Iowa because
T.J. and M.G. “bribe[d]” them and now “they don’t want to go.”
Prior to the hearing, the appointed court visitor issued a report detailing her
investigation and recommendation. See Iowa Code § 232D.305 (2023). The court
visitor interviewed all parties involved. The court visitor’s report noted the mother
1 The mother also left her older child, T.C., with T.J. and M.G. T.C. is now an adult and not at issue in this proceeding. 4
had not “made much of an effort to come to Iowa to visit nor has she offered to
bring the boys to Georgia to visit her home there” and “[i]t appears her interest in
having them come to Georgia to live with her was sparked by the filing of the
guardianship petitions.” The court visitor observed the mother’s main contact with
the children is “by phone,” noting she did not even visit the children in June when
she came to Iowa to serve a two-day jail sentence for an operating-while-
intoxicated conviction. Based on her investigation, the court visitor recommended
T.J. and M.G. be appointed the children’s guardians, explaining:
They have the willingness and ability to provide these boys with the love, stability and support that will enable them to be successful young men. The boys trust and love their grandma and great grandma and know they can rely on them to meet their needs. They are stable and steadfast. Although the mother undoubtedly loves her sons, she has not shown that she is stable and able to adequately provide for their daily care. Reported daily phone contact is not the same as caring for these two young men day in and day out. Her decisions have not shown that she can place their needs above her own.
The children’s attorneys similarly reported the children did not want to go to
Georgia to live with the mother. Specifically, E.D.’s attorney noted concerns about
the mother’s dishonesty, lack of responsibility or attention to the children, and
prioritizing her boyfriend over being a mother. The attorney opined a guardianship
should be established with T.J. and M.G.
In a detailed order, the court found clear and convincing evidence supported
the need for a guardianship:
Overall, the holiday that [the mother] has taken from parenting over the last nearly three years, but certainly since January 2023, leads the Court to find that clear and convincing evidence exists that there has been both a de facto guardianship for [E.D. and J.C.] since at least early 2023 and that there has been a demonstrated lack of 5
consistent parental participation by [the mother] in the lives of [E.D. and J.C.].
The court established a guardianship under Iowa Code section 232D.204(1),2
appointing T.J. and M.G. co-guardians of the children.3 The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“Our standard of review of the establishment of a guardianship of a minor is
de novo. We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, but we are not
bound by them.” In re Guardianship of K.E., No. 23-1481, 2024 WL 3517877, at
*3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024) (internal citations omitted).
III. Analysis
The mother raises one issue on appeal, claiming the court “erroneously
found [she] demonstrated a lack of parental participation in the life of her children.”
The relevant statute provides:
1. The court may appoint a guardian for a minor without the consent of the parent or parents having legal custody of the minor if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence all of the following: a. There is a person serving as a de facto guardian of the minor. b. There has been a demonstrated lack of consistent parental participation in the life of the minor by the parent. In determining whether a parent has demonstrated a lack of consistent participation in the minor’s life, the court may consider all of the following: (1) The intent of the parent in placing the custody, care, and supervision of the minor with the person petitioning as a de facto guardian and the facts and circumstances regarding such placement.
2 Although the court’s judgment appointed the guardians “pursuant to Iowa Code
232D.204(1) and (2),” in its conclusions of law, the court stated: “[T]he court has two alternatives where it may grant a petition. The Court finds the most applicable provision to be Iowa Code 232D.204(1) given the facts of this case.” 3 The court further found “clear and convincing evidence exists that both [the
children’s fathers] would be unwilling or unable to exercise the powers the Court would grant to an appointed guardian and that appointment of a guardian in in the children’s best interests.” 6
(2) The amount of communication and visitation of the parent with the minor during the alleged de facto guardianship. (3) Any refusal of the parent to comply with conditions for retaining custody of the minor set forth in any previous court orders.
Iowa Code § 232D.204(1).
The mother’s claim implicates paragraph (b).4 To support it, she argues,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0175 Filed July 2, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF E.D. and J.C.
T.D., Mother-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.
A mother appeals a juvenile court order establishing a guardianship for her
minor children. AFFIRMED.
Sandra C. Johnson of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, and Heidi
Miller (until withdrawal) of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville, for
appellant mother.
T.J., Ankeny, self-represented appellee.
M.G., Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Annie Von Gillern of van Gillern Law Firm, PLC, Urbandale, attorney for
minor child E.D.
Charlotte Sucik of Abendroth & Russell Law Firm, Urbandale, attorney for
minor child J.C.
Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and
Bower, S.J.* 2
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 3
BOWER, Senior Judge.
The mother of E.D., born in 2008, and J.C., born in 2010, appeals from a
juvenile court order establishing a guardianship over the children. The mother
claims the statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian have not been
met. Because there is clear and convincing evidence the mother demonstrated a
lack of consistent parental participation in the children’s lives, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In December 2020, the mother left her children, then ten and twelve years
old, with the children’s maternal grandmother, T.J., and maternal great-
grandmother, M.G., for what was supposed to be “four weeks.”1 The mother lived
in Arizona and then in Georgia, but she did not return to Iowa. In February 2023,
T.J. and M.G. petitioned to be appointed as guardians of the children on an
involuntary basis. The court appointed T.J. and M.G. temporary guardians of the
children.
After several continuances, which were granted at the mother’s request, the
matter came before the court in September. The mother asked for the children to
“go back home with me to Georgia where they belong.” According to the mother,
“[t]hat was me and my children’s plan,” but the children stayed in Iowa because
T.J. and M.G. “bribe[d]” them and now “they don’t want to go.”
Prior to the hearing, the appointed court visitor issued a report detailing her
investigation and recommendation. See Iowa Code § 232D.305 (2023). The court
visitor interviewed all parties involved. The court visitor’s report noted the mother
1 The mother also left her older child, T.C., with T.J. and M.G. T.C. is now an adult and not at issue in this proceeding. 4
had not “made much of an effort to come to Iowa to visit nor has she offered to
bring the boys to Georgia to visit her home there” and “[i]t appears her interest in
having them come to Georgia to live with her was sparked by the filing of the
guardianship petitions.” The court visitor observed the mother’s main contact with
the children is “by phone,” noting she did not even visit the children in June when
she came to Iowa to serve a two-day jail sentence for an operating-while-
intoxicated conviction. Based on her investigation, the court visitor recommended
T.J. and M.G. be appointed the children’s guardians, explaining:
They have the willingness and ability to provide these boys with the love, stability and support that will enable them to be successful young men. The boys trust and love their grandma and great grandma and know they can rely on them to meet their needs. They are stable and steadfast. Although the mother undoubtedly loves her sons, she has not shown that she is stable and able to adequately provide for their daily care. Reported daily phone contact is not the same as caring for these two young men day in and day out. Her decisions have not shown that she can place their needs above her own.
The children’s attorneys similarly reported the children did not want to go to
Georgia to live with the mother. Specifically, E.D.’s attorney noted concerns about
the mother’s dishonesty, lack of responsibility or attention to the children, and
prioritizing her boyfriend over being a mother. The attorney opined a guardianship
should be established with T.J. and M.G.
In a detailed order, the court found clear and convincing evidence supported
the need for a guardianship:
Overall, the holiday that [the mother] has taken from parenting over the last nearly three years, but certainly since January 2023, leads the Court to find that clear and convincing evidence exists that there has been both a de facto guardianship for [E.D. and J.C.] since at least early 2023 and that there has been a demonstrated lack of 5
consistent parental participation by [the mother] in the lives of [E.D. and J.C.].
The court established a guardianship under Iowa Code section 232D.204(1),2
appointing T.J. and M.G. co-guardians of the children.3 The mother appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“Our standard of review of the establishment of a guardianship of a minor is
de novo. We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, but we are not
bound by them.” In re Guardianship of K.E., No. 23-1481, 2024 WL 3517877, at
*3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024) (internal citations omitted).
III. Analysis
The mother raises one issue on appeal, claiming the court “erroneously
found [she] demonstrated a lack of parental participation in the life of her children.”
The relevant statute provides:
1. The court may appoint a guardian for a minor without the consent of the parent or parents having legal custody of the minor if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence all of the following: a. There is a person serving as a de facto guardian of the minor. b. There has been a demonstrated lack of consistent parental participation in the life of the minor by the parent. In determining whether a parent has demonstrated a lack of consistent participation in the minor’s life, the court may consider all of the following: (1) The intent of the parent in placing the custody, care, and supervision of the minor with the person petitioning as a de facto guardian and the facts and circumstances regarding such placement.
2 Although the court’s judgment appointed the guardians “pursuant to Iowa Code
232D.204(1) and (2),” in its conclusions of law, the court stated: “[T]he court has two alternatives where it may grant a petition. The Court finds the most applicable provision to be Iowa Code 232D.204(1) given the facts of this case.” 3 The court further found “clear and convincing evidence exists that both [the
children’s fathers] would be unwilling or unable to exercise the powers the Court would grant to an appointed guardian and that appointment of a guardian in in the children’s best interests.” 6
(2) The amount of communication and visitation of the parent with the minor during the alleged de facto guardianship. (3) Any refusal of the parent to comply with conditions for retaining custody of the minor set forth in any previous court orders.
Iowa Code § 232D.204(1).
The mother’s claim implicates paragraph (b).4 To support it, she argues,
“Any lack of parental participation on [her] part was caused of the interference of
the co-guardians and their speaking negatively regarding [her] and the move to
Georgia.”
To the contrary, the record establishes T.J. and M.G. extensively supported
the mother’s relationship with the children. True, by 2023, the grandmothers
believed the children should stay in Iowa, but only because the children’s lives
were established there. The children’s attorneys and the court visitor agreed. See
In re B.B., No. 21-0992, 2022 WL 523325, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2022)
(“We must consider the child’s immediate and long-range best interests. The
[guardian ad litem] opined staying with [the maternal aunt] was in the child’s best
interests, where [the child] could finish her high school years and ‘be a kid.’ We
agree . . . .”). The record is also replete with concerns whether the mother could
meet the basic, daily responsibilities of raising these children. Aside from medical,
educational, and housing needs,5 the children were very active in athletics,
including club sports teams. For years, the grandmothers had signed them up for
4 She acknowledges, “It is undisputed that M.G. has served as a de facto guardian
for the minor children. From [the mother’s] own testimony, the children have lived with M.G. from December 2020 to present.” See id. § 232D.204(1)(a). 5 During the time the children lived with the mother in Arizona in 2019 and 2020,
the family was kicked out of their home with an aunt and uncle, and the children had problems getting to school. The mother acknowledged things did not go well for the children in Arizona while under her care. 7
teams, taken them to practices, purchased their equipment, and attended their
competitions. We do not find the grandmothers’ efforts “undermine proof of the
mother’s failure to consistently participate in parenting.” In re Guardianship of
L.W., No. 23-1725, 2024 WL 3688590, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024) (rejecting
a claim the guardian “made it difficult to be involved in the child’s life”).
We further observe the court repeatedly found the mother’s testimony had
“very little credibility.” We defer to the court’s finding, see id. at *1, and upon our
own independent review of the record, we concur there are many discrepancies in
the mother’s testimony, which ultimately discredit her claim.
We agree with the juvenile court that the mother demonstrated a lack of
parental participation in the life of her children and paragraph 232D.204(1)(b) was
proved by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the court’s order establishing
a guardianship.
AFFIRMED.