Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re W.A.

Court of Appeals of Iowa

October 11, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF W.A., C.A., B.A., and H.A., Minor Children, N.A, Grandmother, Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker, District Associate Judge.

         A grandmother appeals a juvenile court order denying her motions for intervention and visitation. AFFIRMED.

          Laura Jean Lockwood of Hartung & Schroeder, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant grandmother.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Nancy L. Pietz of Pietz Law Office, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child W.A.

          Mary Kathryn Miller of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children C.A., B.A., and H.A.

          Considered Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.

          MULLINS, JUDGE

         The appellant, N.A., is the biological, paternal grandmother of the children in interest. She appeals a juvenile court order denying her motions for intervention and visitation.[1] Her viable arguments on appeal are that the district court erred in (1) not allowing her to intervene and (2) denying her request for visitation.[2]

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         The children's parents' parental rights as to all four children were terminated in October 2016. This court subsequently affirmed the termination of both parents' parental rights. See generally In re W.A., No. 16-1774, 2017 WL 104975 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017). In December, the juvenile court ordered the children be placed in the custody and guardianship of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) for purposes of adoption. DHS began exploring possibilities for adoption and placed W.A. and B.A in foster care and C.A. and H.A. in relative care with their maternal grandmother. Currently, the maternal grandmother is not an option for permanent placement for C.A. and H.A, but W.A. and B.A.'s foster parents have been approved for adoption.

         In January 2017, N.A. moved to intervene in the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) and termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) cases, arguing she was an interested party due to her status as the children's grandmother and no other party was representing, or had the ability to represent, her interests. She requested "that the [c]ourt grant her party status in the ongoing . . . cases regarding her grandchildren." A hearing was held on the motion in March; the hearing was limited to argument by the parties and the submission of exhibits. In May, while the matter was still pending, N.A. filed a motion for visitation. In July, the juvenile court entered a written ruling denying both motions and making the following conclusions:

The parental rights of the parents have been terminated. The children are currently in foster care and relative care (maternal grandmother) and are thriving. [N.A.] has not been a placement for the children since the inception of this matter. It is not in the best ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.