STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-889 / 08-0703
Filed December 17, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C.
Gerard, II, District Associate Judge.
The State of Iowa by certiorari action claims the juvenile court acted
illegally in ordering the Iowa Department of Human Services to incur certain
expenses. WRIT SUSTAINED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Janet Lyness, County Attorney, and Kristin Parks, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellant.
Natalie Cronk, Iowa City, for appellee-mother.
W. Eric Nelson, Coralville, for appellee-father.
Thomas Maxwell, Iowa City, for intervenor-foster parents.
2
Ellen
Ramsey-Kacena,
Cedar
Rapids,
for
intervenor-paternal
grandmother.
Christine Frederick, Davenport, for appellee-minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
3
PER CURIAM
Following a hearing the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of
seven-year-old D.W.’s father. It dismissed the State’s petition for termination of
the parental rights of D.W.’s mother. The court ordered that D.W. be placed in
the legal custody of D.W.’s paternal grandmother, who resides in Missouri, in
whose physical custody the court had previously placed him and with whom he
appears to be bonded. The court ordered that the Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) submit an amended case permanency plan for another planned
permanent living arrangement–relative placement of D.W. with his paternal
grandmother–pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.117(5) (2007).
The DHS prepared and filed in the underlying child in need of assistance
case the ordered amended case permanency plan and a progress report. The
juvenile court then entered a review order approving the progress report and its
recommended actions, and establishing a permanency goal of another planned
permanent living arrangement–long term relative care by D.W.’s paternal
grandmother. The court’s order encouraged the grandmother “to obtain a legal
guardianship in the State of Missouri.” The order further provided that the DHS
“shall provide financial assistance for est[ablishment] of guardianship and shall
provide funds to enable child to attend next in court review.”
The State
challenges, by writ of certiorari issued by our supreme court, this latter portion of
the court’s order.
Certiorari is a procedure to test whether a lower board,
tribunal or court exceeded its proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted
illegally. Relief through certiorari is strictly limited to questions of
jurisdiction or illegality of the challenged acts.
4
Therefore, our review of the district court’s action is to
correct errors of law.
French v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 546 N.W.2d 911, 913 (Iowa 1996) (citations omitted).
The State claims the juvenile court acted illegally in imposing the
challenged costs upon the DHS, arguing that courts must have authority to
impose any particular expense upon a state agency such as the DHS and no
such statutory authority exists for imposition of either of the challenged costs. In
support of its position it cites Pfister v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 688 N.W.2d 790, 796-97
(Iowa 2004); Gouge v. Northern Ind. Commuter Transp., 670 N.E.2d 363, 369
(Ind. Ct. App. 1996); Missouri Hosp. Ass’n v. Air Conservation Comm’n, 900
S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995); and In re Lazano, 585 N.E.2d 889, 891
(Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
In specific support of its position concerning financial assistance for
establishment of a guardianship, the State points out that although our legislature
has established a project for subsidized guardianships, see Iowa Code §
234.39(5) (2007), and has appropriated funds for that purpose, see, e.g., 2007
Iowa Acts ch. 1184, § 10; 1996 Iowa Acts ch. 1213, § 10, the project is
experimental. The State further points out that the program involves random
assignment to either a control group or an experimental group, see Iowa Admin.
Code r. 441-204, Preamble; requires an application requesting to participate, see
Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-204.3, and there is no evidence of such an application
having been made in this case; and conditions the eligibility for a guardian for a
child upon satisfaction of certain criteria, including a child under twelve years of
age who is the ward of the guardianship being part of a sibling group with a child
5
twelve or older, see Iowa Admin Code r. 441-204.2(1)(c); and there is no
evidence the paternal grandmother meets all of the required conditions.
The appellee, D.W., does not challenge the State’s assertion that absent
statutory authority courts may not impose costs or expenses upon a state
agency.
D.W. instead asserts that D.W.’s paternal grandmother is of limited
means,1 and argues the juvenile court’s order is fiscally responsible and
financially in the best interest of the State and is in the best interest of D.W.
We agree with the position taken by the State, concluding that absent
statutory authority a court may not require a state agency to incur financial
obligations.2 See, e.g., Batcheller v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 251 Iowa
364, 368, 101 N.W.2d 30, 33 (1960) (“Nor may the courts require defendant to
pay or disburse public funds without statutory authority.”).
We conclude the
juvenile court acted illegally when it ordered the DHS to provide financial
assistance for the establishment of a guardianship in Missouri, and when it
ordered the DHS to provide funds for transporting D.W. to Iowa for an in-court
review. We sustain the writ of certiorari and annul those parts of the juvenile
court order requiring the DHS to incur such expenses.
WRIT SUSTAINED.
1
Those materials included in the appendix neither support nor refute this assertion.
We need not and do not address the question of whether a court may do so in cases
in which providing funds might be required by constitution, as that question is not before
us.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.