IN THE INTEREST OF D.G., Minor Child, A.A.G., Mother, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-783 / 09-1291
Filed October 7, 2009
IN THE INTEREST OF D.G., Minor Child,
A.A.G., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Alan D. Albee,
Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.
AFFIRMED.
Steve McCorkindale of Ehrhardt, Gnagy & McCorkindale, Elkader, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant
Attorney General, Kevin H. Clefisch, County Attorney, and Stephen D. Saunders,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Gregory Schiller, Monona, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She
contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her motion to
continue the termination hearing. She also asserts the court erred in not granting
her “request for leave of court and concurrent jurisdiction to pursue a
guardianship for the minor child” with the grandmother.
At the time of the termination hearing, the mother was incarcerated in
Wisconsin with over two years left to serve on her sentence. However, her term
of incarceration could be reduced by up to one-third.
The day before the
termination hearing, she filed a motion to continue, seeking to continue the trial
until November 2009 when she would have a more definite release date. The
State and guardian ad litem resisted the motion, citing the best interest of the
child.
We review a ruling on a motion for continuance under an abuse of
discretion standard and will only reverse if injustice will result to the party desiring
the continuance. In re C.W., 554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). To
warrant reversal, denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the
circumstances. Id.
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
mother’s motion for a continuance. The child, born in February 2008, has been
out of the mother’s care for over half her life. At the time of the termination
hearing, the mother had another ten to fifteen months of incarceration left. Given
3
the child’s young age and need for permanency, denial of the motion to continue
was not unreasonable.
The mother also contends the court abused its discretion in denying her
“request for leave of court and concurrent jurisdiction to pursue a guardianship.”
At the termination hearing, the mother’s counsel indicated the mother wished to
file an application for concurrent jurisdiction, although none had yet been
prepared. The mother also wrote a letter to the juvenile court in June 2009
stating her request that her mother be granted guardianship of the child. The
record before us contains no written request for concurrent jurisdiction and no
ruling on the same. Accordingly, there is nothing for us to review. See In re
T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (holding an issue not
presented to the trial court may not be raised on appeal). We note the court
placed custody and guardianship with the maternal grandmother. To the extent
the mother is arguing additional time should have been granted to allow her to
seek concurrent jurisdiction, we find no abuse of discretion for the reasons stated
above.
We affirm the juvenile court order terminating the mother’s parental rights
to her child.
AFFIRMED.
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.
