In the Matter of the Guardianship of E.D. and J.C.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0175
Filed July 2, 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF E.D. and J.C.

T.D.,
Mother-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.

A mother appeals a juvenile court order establishing a guardianship for her

minor children. AFFIRMED.

Sandra C. Johnson of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, and Heidi

Miller (until withdrawal) of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville, for

appellant mother.

T.J., Ankeny, self-represented appellee.

M.G., Des Moines, self-represented appellee.

Annie Von Gillern of van Gillern Law Firm, PLC, Urbandale, attorney for

minor child E.D.

Charlotte Sucik of Abendroth & Russell Law Firm, Urbandale, attorney for

minor child J.C.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and

Bower, S.J.*
2

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
3

BOWER, Senior Judge.

The mother of E.D., born in 2008, and J.C., born in 2010, appeals from a

juvenile court order establishing a guardianship over the children. The mother

claims the statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian have not been

met. Because there is clear and convincing evidence the mother demonstrated a

lack of consistent parental participation in the children’s lives, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In December 2020, the mother left her children, then ten and twelve years

old, with the children’s maternal grandmother, T.J., and maternal great-

grandmother, M.G., for what was supposed to be “four weeks.”1 The mother lived

in Arizona and then in Georgia, but she did not return to Iowa. In February 2023,

T.J. and M.G. petitioned to be appointed as guardians of the children on an

involuntary basis. The court appointed T.J. and M.G. temporary guardians of the

children.

After several continuances, which were granted at the mother’s request, the

matter came before the court in September. The mother asked for the children to

“go back home with me to Georgia where they belong.” According to the mother,

“[t]hat was me and my children’s plan,” but the children stayed in Iowa because

T.J. and M.G. “bribe[d]” them and now “they don’t want to go.”

Prior to the hearing, the appointed court visitor issued a report detailing her

investigation and recommendation. See Iowa Code § 232D.305 (2023). The court

visitor interviewed all parties involved. The court visitor’s report noted the mother

1 The mother also left her older child, T.C., with T.J. and M.G. T.C. is now an adult
and not at issue in this proceeding.
4

had not “made much of an effort to come to Iowa to visit nor has she offered to

bring the boys to Georgia to visit her home there” and “[i]t appears her interest in

having them come to Georgia to live with her was sparked by the filing of the

guardianship petitions.” The court visitor observed the mother’s main contact with

the children is “by phone,” noting she did not even visit the children in June when

she came to Iowa to serve a two-day jail sentence for an operating-while-

intoxicated conviction. Based on her investigation, the court visitor recommended

T.J. and M.G. be appointed the children’s guardians, explaining:

They have the willingness and ability to provide these boys with the
love, stability and support that will enable them to be successful
young men. The boys trust and love their grandma and great
grandma and know they can rely on them to meet their needs. They
are stable and steadfast. Although the mother undoubtedly loves her
sons, she has not shown that she is stable and able to adequately
provide for their daily care. Reported daily phone contact is not the
same as caring for these two young men day in and day out. Her
decisions have not shown that she can place their needs above her
own.

The children’s attorneys similarly reported the children did not want to go to

Georgia to live with the mother. Specifically, E.D.’s attorney noted concerns about

the mother’s dishonesty, lack of responsibility or attention to the children, and

prioritizing her boyfriend over being a mother. The attorney opined a guardianship

should be established with T.J. and M.G.

In a detailed order, the court found clear and convincing evidence supported

the need for a guardianship:

Overall, the holiday that [the mother] has taken from parenting over
the last nearly three years, but certainly since January 2023, leads
the Court to find that clear and convincing evidence exists that there
has been both a de facto guardianship for [E.D. and J.C.] since at
least early 2023 and that there has been a demonstrated lack of
5

consistent parental participation by [the mother] in the lives of [E.D.
and J.C.].

The court established a guardianship under Iowa Code section 232D.204(1),2

appointing T.J. and M.G. co-guardians of the children.3 The mother appeals.

II. Standard of Review

“Our standard of review of the establishment of a guardianship of a minor is

de novo. We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings, but we are not

bound by them.” In re Guardianship of K.E., No. 23-1481, 2024 WL 3517877, at

*3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024) (internal citations omitted).

III. Analysis

The mother raises one issue on appeal, claiming the court “erroneously

found [she] demonstrated a lack of parental participation in the life of her children.”

The relevant statute provides:

1. The court may appoint a guardian for a minor without the
consent of the parent or parents having legal custody of the minor if
the court finds by clear and convincing evidence all of the following:
a. There is a person serving as a de facto guardian of the
minor.
b. There has been a demonstrated lack of consistent parental
participation in the life of the minor by the parent. In determining
whether a parent has demonstrated a lack of consistent participation
in the minor’s life, the court may consider all of the following:
(1) The intent of the parent in placing the custody, care, and
supervision of the minor with the person petitioning as a de facto
guardian and the facts and circumstances regarding such
placement.

2 Although the court’s judgment appointed the guardians “pursuant to Iowa Code

232D.204(1) and (2),” in its conclusions of law, the court stated: “[T]he court has
two alternatives where it may grant a petition. The Court finds the most applicable
provision to be Iowa Code 232D.204(1) given the facts of this case.”
3 The court further found “clear and convincing evidence exists that both [the

children’s fathers] would be unwilling or unable to exercise the powers the Court
would grant to an appointed guardian and that appointment of a guardian in in the
children’s best interests.”
6

(2) The amount of communication and visitation of the parent
with the minor during the alleged de facto guardianship.
(3) Any refusal of the parent to comply with conditions for
retaining custody of the minor set forth in any previous court orders.

Iowa Code § 232D.204(1).

The mother’s claim implicates paragraph (b).4 To support it, she argues,

“Any lack of parental participation on [her] part was caused of the interference of

the co-guardians and their speaking negatively regarding [her] and the move to

Georgia.”

To the contrary, the record establishes T.J. and M.G. extensively supported

the mother’s relationship with the children. True, by 2023, the grandmothers

believed the children should stay in Iowa, but only because the children’s lives

were established there. The children’s attorneys and the court visitor agreed. See

In re B.B., No. 21-0992, 2022 WL 523325, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2022)

(“We must consider the child’s immediate and long-range best interests. The

[guardian ad litem] opined staying with [the maternal aunt] was in the child’s best

interests, where [the child] could finish her high school years and ‘be a kid.’ We

agree . . . .”). The record is also replete with concerns whether the mother could

meet the basic, daily responsibilities of raising these children. Aside from medical,

educational, and housing needs,5 the children were very active in athletics,

including club sports teams. For years, the grandmothers had signed them up for

4 She acknowledges, “It is undisputed that M.G. has served as a de facto guardian

for the minor children. From [the mother’s] own testimony, the children have lived
with M.G. from December 2020 to present.” See id. § 232D.204(1)(a).
5 During the time the children lived with the mother in Arizona in 2019 and 2020,

the family was kicked out of their home with an aunt and uncle, and the children
had problems getting to school. The mother acknowledged things did not go well
for the children in Arizona while under her care.
7

teams, taken them to practices, purchased their equipment, and attended their

competitions. We do not find the grandmothers’ efforts “undermine proof of the

mother’s failure to consistently participate in parenting.” In re Guardianship of

L.W., No. 23-1725, 2024 WL 3688590, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024) (rejecting

a claim the guardian “made it difficult to be involved in the child’s life”).

We further observe the court repeatedly found the mother’s testimony had

“very little credibility.” We defer to the court’s finding, see id. at *1, and upon our

own independent review of the record, we concur there are many discrepancies in

the mother’s testimony, which ultimately discredit her claim.

We agree with the juvenile court that the mother demonstrated a lack of

parental participation in the life of her children and paragraph 232D.204(1)(b) was

proved by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm the court’s order establishing

a guardianship.

AFFIRMED.