« November 2007 |
Main
| February 2008 »
January 31, 2008
Iowa Court of Appeals Decisions for January 16, 2008
The first set of 2008 selected family law decisions from the Iowa Court of Appeals is available . No Chapter 232 termination of parental rights decisions are included.
Posted on January 31, 2008 in Appellate (Iowa) Decisions | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 30, 2008
Iowa Court of Appeals Decisions for January 30, 2008
Selected family law decisions from today's decisions by the Iowa Court of Appeals can be found . No Chapter 232 termination of parental rights decisions are included.
Posted on January 30, 2008 in Appellate (Iowa) Decisions | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 18, 2008
Schott v. Schott - No Collateral Attack on Prior "Second Parent" Adoption
Today's Iowa Supreme Court decision in Schott v. Schott, available in PDF format , concerns prior "second parent adoptions" issued by an Iowa court and another Iowa court's subsequent collateral attack on the validity of the adoptions in a later child custody proceeding. In the case, the two female parties obtained valid, unappealed, and unchallenged Iowa adoptions to two children. One of the parties is the biological parent of both children; the other party legally adopted both of Jamie's children. Subsequently, the parents' relationship deteriorated and each parent asserted claims of custody/visitation with the trial court.
The opinion indicates that there was no question that the prior, underlying adoptions were properly obtained, as all necessary consents given, and that neither party, nor any third-party, challenged the validity of or the authority of the adoption court to grant the adoptions at that time. In fact, this case is unusual in that neither party ever contested the validity of the adoptions. The appeal arose only when a subsequent Iowa court in 2007 raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the custody/visitation case approximately three years after the 2004 adoption of the youngest child. (The older child's adoption occurred in 2001). It is unclear from the opinion how the issue of custody was presented to the trial court, but the opinion does hold that Iowa trial courts, being courts of general jurisdiction in both law and equity, have "inherent power and jurisdiction in all proceedings involving custody and care of minor children." Both parties appealed the district court's dismissal of the case on the basis that because Heather's adoptions of Jamie's children were contrary to Iowa law and therefore invalid, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider any custodial/visitation issue concerning the children.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the district court to collaterally attack and invalidate the prior adoptions. While the district court may have disagreed with the finding of the earlier adoption court that a "second parent" adoption is permitted under Iowa law, the adoptions remained lawful and valid as "an adoption may be only be collaterally attacked if the district court granting the adoption lacked jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, or on due process grounds by a natural parent." As the Supreme Court found none of those grounds existed, the adoption decrees remained valid and both parties remained legal parents. Therefore, as legal parents, both parties were entitled to put their claims for custody/visitation before the court.
The Schott decision appears to be limited to situations involving existing, final "second parent" adoptions, as the Court expressly held it "need not decide whether second parent adoptions are permissible in Iowa for the purposes of this appeal." Thus, the question posed by the district court in its initial action that gave rise to this appeal reamins unanswered. (i.e., the trial court's interpretation that Iowa's adoption statute "does not allow an unmarried adult to adopt a child without terminating the parental rights of both natural parents").
Schott v. Schott, No. 07-0610, January 18, 2008. (last accessed 1/18/08)
Posted on January 18, 2008 in Custody | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 04, 2008
Children's Representative in Custody Cases
The Anderson case from the Iowa Court of Appeals last week contains an interesting discussion about the differences between a "guardian ad litem" and an "attorney" appointed to represent children under Iowa Code 598.12. As the Anderson case illustrates, there are considerable differences between the rights and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem and an attorney appointed to represent the children.
The approach and terminology set forth in Section 598.12 has been abandoned as outdated by many child-advocate organizations and several states. Instead, a much more contemporary and practical approach is recommended by the ABA. The current model statute, which Iowa should adopt, can be found here. Even a quick read of the model statute begins to expose some of the problems of current Iowa law. The title of the act alone ("Uniform Representation") references an issue that occurred in the Anderson case - the lack of an order that clearly distinguishes the differences between a "GAL" and "best interests" advocate (attorney or not) in each case. The model act would go a long way to ensuring the best interests of Iowa's children are being met once their parents cannot agree and court involvement is necessary.
Posted on January 04, 2008 in Custody | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
Main
| February 2008 »
January 31, 2008
Iowa Court of Appeals Decisions for January 16, 2008
The first set of 2008 selected family law decisions from the Iowa Court of Appeals is available . No Chapter 232 termination of parental rights decisions are included.
Posted on January 31, 2008 in Appellate (Iowa) Decisions | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 30, 2008
Iowa Court of Appeals Decisions for January 30, 2008
Selected family law decisions from today's decisions by the Iowa Court of Appeals can be found . No Chapter 232 termination of parental rights decisions are included.
Posted on January 30, 2008 in Appellate (Iowa) Decisions | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 18, 2008
Schott v. Schott - No Collateral Attack on Prior "Second Parent" Adoption
Today's Iowa Supreme Court decision in Schott v. Schott, available in PDF format , concerns prior "second parent adoptions" issued by an Iowa court and another Iowa court's subsequent collateral attack on the validity of the adoptions in a later child custody proceeding. In the case, the two female parties obtained valid, unappealed, and unchallenged Iowa adoptions to two children. One of the parties is the biological parent of both children; the other party legally adopted both of Jamie's children. Subsequently, the parents' relationship deteriorated and each parent asserted claims of custody/visitation with the trial court.
The opinion indicates that there was no question that the prior, underlying adoptions were properly obtained, as all necessary consents given, and that neither party, nor any third-party, challenged the validity of or the authority of the adoption court to grant the adoptions at that time. In fact, this case is unusual in that neither party ever contested the validity of the adoptions. The appeal arose only when a subsequent Iowa court in 2007 raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the custody/visitation case approximately three years after the 2004 adoption of the youngest child. (The older child's adoption occurred in 2001). It is unclear from the opinion how the issue of custody was presented to the trial court, but the opinion does hold that Iowa trial courts, being courts of general jurisdiction in both law and equity, have "inherent power and jurisdiction in all proceedings involving custody and care of minor children." Both parties appealed the district court's dismissal of the case on the basis that because Heather's adoptions of Jamie's children were contrary to Iowa law and therefore invalid, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider any custodial/visitation issue concerning the children.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the district court to collaterally attack and invalidate the prior adoptions. While the district court may have disagreed with the finding of the earlier adoption court that a "second parent" adoption is permitted under Iowa law, the adoptions remained lawful and valid as "an adoption may be only be collaterally attacked if the district court granting the adoption lacked jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, or on due process grounds by a natural parent." As the Supreme Court found none of those grounds existed, the adoption decrees remained valid and both parties remained legal parents. Therefore, as legal parents, both parties were entitled to put their claims for custody/visitation before the court.
The Schott decision appears to be limited to situations involving existing, final "second parent" adoptions, as the Court expressly held it "need not decide whether second parent adoptions are permissible in Iowa for the purposes of this appeal." Thus, the question posed by the district court in its initial action that gave rise to this appeal reamins unanswered. (i.e., the trial court's interpretation that Iowa's adoption statute "does not allow an unmarried adult to adopt a child without terminating the parental rights of both natural parents").
Schott v. Schott, No. 07-0610, January 18, 2008. (last accessed 1/18/08)
Posted on January 18, 2008 in Custody | Permalink
|
TrackBack (0)
January 04, 2008
Children's Representative in Custody Cases
The Anderson case from the Iowa Court of Appeals last week contains an interesting discussion about the differences between a "guardian ad litem" and an "attorney" appointed to represent children under Iowa Code 598.12. As the Anderson case illustrates, there are considerable differences between the rights and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem and an attorney appointed to represent the children.
The approach and terminology set forth in Section 598.12 has been abandoned as outdated by many child-advocate organizations and several states. Instead, a much more contemporary and practical approach is recommended by the ABA. The current model statute, which Iowa should adopt, can be found here. Even a quick read of the model statute begins to expose some of the problems of current Iowa law. The title of the act alone ("Uniform Representation") references an issue that occurred in the Anderson case - the lack of an order that clearly distinguishes the differences between a "GAL" and "best interests" advocate (attorney or not) in each case. The model act would go a long way to ensuring the best interests of Iowa's children are being met once their parents cannot agree and court involvement is necessary.
Posted on January 04, 2008 in Custody | Permalink
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (0)
© 2004-2011 iadivorce.com All Rights Reserved.