In the Interest of R.C., Minor Child
G.D., Mother-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant Mother
Harold K. Widdison
Attorney for Appellee State
Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General
Guardian ad litem
Lesley D. Rynell
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. Partial Dissent by May, J. (10 pages)
Pursuant to a 2017 permanency order, R.C. is placed in the custody of his father and resides in a residential care facility for children with special needs. R.C.’s mother filed motions requesting paternity testing on R.C. and asking for expanded visitation with him. The juvenile court concluded neither request was in R.C.’s best interests, denied the mother’s motions, and otherwise affirmed the permanency order on review. OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court should have ordered paternity testing, so we reverse and remand on this issue. We otherwise affirm the juvenile court order on permanency review, including the denial of the mother’s request for expanded visitation. R.C. remains in the custody of the father. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because the mother cited no statute in support of her motion for paternity testing, I would not reverse the denial of her motion on statutory grounds.
