In the Interest of A.S., Minor Child
S.R. and J.R., Intervenors-Appellants.
Attorney for Appellants
Melissa A. Nine (argued)
Attorney for Appellee Minor Child
Rachel Antonuccio (argued)
Attorney for Appellee State
Michelle R. Becker (argued), Assistant Attorney General
Guardian ad Litem
Christina Shriver
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Michelle Jungers, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, P.J. (29 pages)
Seven-year-old A.S. became an orphan after first her father and then her mother died of drug overdoses in a ten-day span. After adjudicating A.S. a child in need of assistance (CINA) and following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to place the child with caregivers from the category of fictive kin. The intervenor-grandparents challenge that ruling and others, arguing (1) A.S. should never have been adjudicated CINA because they were appropriate family members ready to take over her care when her parents died; (2) in the alternative—assuming we do not reverse the CINA adjudication—we should reverse the part of the dispositional order placing A.S. with fictive kin rather than relatives, and (3) the juvenile court should have granted their motion for concurrent jurisdiction so they can pursue a guardianship under Iowa Code chapter 232D (2024). While filing neither an appeal nor a petition for writ of certiorari, the State—representing HHS—takes a position contrary to the juvenile court’s ruling. The child’s attorney responds in support of the juvenile court ruling and asks us to disregard the State’s appellate filings. OPINION HOLDS: We do not consider the State’s position or filings since it argues against the juvenile court ruling but did not file a notice of appeal. We cannot reach the merits of the grandparents’ arguments about the CINA adjudication. And we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional ruling concluding placement with adult relatives is not in A.S.’s best interests and agree that denying concurrent jurisdiction serves A.S’s best interests.
