Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-962 / 08-1598 Filed December 31, 2008

IN THE INTEREST OF T.W., Minor Child, J.S. and C.S., Intervenors, Appellants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.

Foster parents appeal from an order, which was entered without notice to them, placing guardianship and legal custody of the child with maternal greatgrandparents. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Amanda Demichelis of Demichelis Law Firm, Chariton, for appellants foster parents/intervenors. James Underwood, Centerville, for mother. Jonathan Willier, Centerville, for father. Ryan Mitchell, Ottumwa, for appellees grandparents/intervenors.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, and Steve Goodlow, County Attorney, for State. Kevin Maughan, Albia, for minor child.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.

2 MAHAN, J. The foster parents appeal from a September 22, 2008 order, which was entered without notice to them, terminating the Iowa Department of Human Services as T.W.'s guardian and placing guardianship and legal custody of T.W. with the maternal great-grandparents. The great-grandparents have moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the foster parents, having never petitioned to become parties to the proceedings, have no legal right to appeal. The motion to dismiss was ordered deemed submitted with the appeal. We overrule the motion to dismiss and reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The appellants are the foster parents of T.W., who was placed in their care in November 2006. T.W.'s parents' rights were terminated on March 31, 2008. In the order terminating parental rights, legal custody and guardianship of T.W. was placed with the Iowa Department of Human Services (Department). At the time of termination, the court noted that both the foster parents and the maternal great-grandparents had expressed interest in adopting T.W.: Whether . . . permanency is eventually with the foster parents, a relative, or some other suitable party, it is a safe, permanent home that will be most important for [T.W.] Given the record before the Court at this time, the department is best equipped to make the decision of who would be appropriate to adopt [T.W.]. The court ordered the Department to submit a case permanency plan to the court and to make every effort to establish a stable placement for the child in interest by adoption or other permanent placement. An August 1, 2008 report was prepared by the Department for the permanency review hearing, which was to be held August 11, 2008, and to

3 update the plan for transfer to the adoption unit. In that report caseworker Joey Popson writes: [T.W.] has a strong bond with his current foster parents. [T.W.] sees [C.S.] and [J.S.] as his mother and father as these are the only parents that he has known since three months of age. [C.S.] and [J.S.] are excellent care takers of [T.W.] and are very attentive to his needs. [T.W.] has visits with his former great-grand parents . . . who intervened in court proceedings. They have had visits with [T.W.] since October 2007. These visits began as supervised by Vikki Brunk the FSRP provider and are currently 2 hours, 2 nights a week and 6 hours 2 Sundays a month. Vikki reported that at the visits the interaction with [T.W.] was appropriate and that [T.W.] was affectionate with [them]. The visits were not stopped after the termination occurred and continue at this time. The Guardian Ad Litem reported that he wanted visits to continue since they were a possible adoptive party. .... At the Foster Care Review Board that was held on May 6, 2008, the Board related that they support the placement of T.W. with [the foster] family. Under Concurrent Goals is written: The child is currently placed in foster care, a preadoptive home, and the foster parents are willing to adopt. . . . Greatgrandparents have intervened to attempt to adopt T.W. The report was filed September 11, 2008. The August 11, 2008 permanency review hearing was reset on the State's motion. No notice was sent to the foster parents. We are unable to determine if notice was sent to the foster parents with regard to the great-grandparents' motion to remove the Department as guardian and their request to be appointed the child's guardians. On September 22, 2008, a hearing was held on the great-grandparents' motion to remove the Department as guardian and request to be appointed the

4 child's guardians. The foster parents were not present. The Department

appeared and took no position. The guardian ad litem reported: Your honor, I have observed this child in the [greatgrandparents'] home and I have observed the child in foster care. And it's taken some time here since termination for the case to get transferred to an adoption worker, and I think that permanency needs to be established for this child. And I think really what turns my opinion here is the long-term best interests of this child. Again, I believe he's received good care in the foster home and that he would continue to receive good care in the foster home. However, I believe that in order

Download IN THE INTEREST OF T.W., Minor Child, J.S. and C.S., Intervenors, Appellants..

Iowa Law