In the Interest of A.B. and R.B., Minor Children, R.B., Mother, C.B., Father ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1037
Filed September 10, 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. and R.B.,
Minor Children,
R.B., Mother,
Appellant,
C.B., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin Witt, District
Associate Judge.
A mother and father both challenge a juvenile court permanency order.
APPEALS DISMISSED.
Jessica J. Chandler of Chandler Law Offices, Windsor Heights, for
appellant-mother.
Bryan J. Tingle, Des Moines, for appellant-father.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jennifer Galloway, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Nicole Garbis Nolan of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, J.
A mother and father filed petitions on appeal challenging a juvenile court
permanency order directing the county attorney to institute proceedings to
terminate their parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(c) (2015).
Both parents argue the juvenile court should have granted an additional six
months for them to work toward reunification with their two children as allowed
under section 232.104(2)(b). The Department of Human Services (DHS) also
supported a six-month extension.1
Before addressing the merits of the parents’ arguments, we examine
whether the appeal is properly before us. The right to appeal depends on the
finality of the permanency order. In re T.R., 705 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 2005). A final
order is “one that finally adjudicates the rights of the parties, and it must put it
beyond the power of the court which made it to place the parties in their original
positions.” Id. at 10. Where the juvenile court directs the initiation of termination
proceedings, finality does not come until after the termination hearing. See In re
W.D. III, 562 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Iowa 1997); In re A.C., 443 N.W.2d 732, 733
(Iowa Ct. App. 1989). The permanency order also does not place the issues
beyond the juvenile court’s ability to return the children to the parents’ custody or
grant additional time to achieve reunification. We conclude the permanency
1
The State initially moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, but later withdrew the
motion and filed a statement to the court explaining the ruling being challenged did not
adopt the recommendations of the State, and the State did not take action to challenge
the ruling on appeal, so accordingly the State did not believe it could take a position in
the appeal.
3
order being challenged is not a final order under Iowa Rule of Appellate
Procedure 6.103.
Although the permanency ruling is interlocutory, we have the option to
treat the parents’ petitions on appeal as if they requested the proper form of
review. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.104(1)(b)(1), 6.108; see T.R., 705 N.W.2d at 10(leaving open the possibility of granting an application for interlocutory appeal to
confer jurisdiction over the case). Our supreme court has advised that
interlocutory appeals should rarely be permitted before the juvenile court’s
disposition of a child welfare case. W.D., 562 N.W.2d at 186. “Refusing to allow
such appeals promotes judicial economy and efficiency, waiting for a final order
[gives] our court the benefit of the district court’s careful consideration of the
issue, and permitting piecemeal appeals subjects the child to the uncertainties of
litigation.” T.R., 705 N.W.2d at 12. We see no reason cited in the petitions on
appeal that would justify delaying the progress toward permanency for these
children. We decline to grant the interlocutory appeals.
APPEALS DISMISSED.