IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18

- 1164 Filed October 10, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF A.K., Minor Child, B.K., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin A. Parker , District Associate Judge.

The father of a child who was adjudicated in need of assistance appeals an order granti ng the district court concurrent jurisdiction to proceed with a guardianship action. AFFIRMED.

Bryan J. Tingle of Tingle Law Office , Des Moines, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Penny B. Reimer of Cooper, Goedicke, Reimer & Reese, PC, West Des Moines, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. , and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.2

VAITHESWARAN , Presiding Judge
. The father of a child who was adjudicated in need of assistance appeals an order granting the district court concurrent jurisdiction to proceed with a guardianship action. The relevant background facts and proceedings are as follows. The State filed a petition to have a teenager adju dicated a child in need of assistance. The petition was based on child

- abuse assessments finding t he child ’ s father physically abused the teen and the mother us ed methamphetamine while caring for her

. The juvenile court granted the petition and initiated reunification serv ices. The father cooperated with services , and the child was reunited with the father. Almost immediately, the child informed the department of human services that the father abused her again

. The juvenile court granted the State ’ s application to have the child transferred to shelter care. At the same time, the child ’ s adult half

- sister filed a district court petition to

serve as guardian of the child. The juvenile court granted the district court concurrent jurisdiction to proce ed with the guardianship matter, reasoning as follows: [The child] is currently in shelter [care]. The parents do not appear to be a viable option at this time. [The child] is sixteen years of age and has a half

- sibling willing to care for her. She r esides in South Dakota

. . . . Concurrent jurisdiction is in [the child ’ s] best interest, since the juvenile court has not found a permanent solution to assist [the child ’ s] placement. T he child ’ s father contends the juvenile court “ pawn[ed] off a difficult situation to another court to make a determination that could directly affect the long3

term health and welfare of a child currently in the custody of [the D epartment of H uman S ervices ]

. ” W e disagree. A juvenile court exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child

- in

- need

- of

assistance proceedings. Iowa Code § 232.61(1) (2017) . The court may grant a district court concurrent jurisdiction to address particular issues, including guardianships. Id

. § 232.2(3)(2). The court ’ s “ disc retion must be exercised in the best interests of the child. ” In re R

. G ., 450 N.W.2d 823, 825 (Iowa 1990). At a hearing on the concurrent

- jurisdiction motion, t he department employee assigned to the case initially testified it was safe to return the chil d to her father ’ s home

. Later, she backtracked, stating participation in family therapy would be a necessary precursor to reunification

. She noted that the sixteen

- year old child was not in favor of returning to her father ’ s home at that point and the child ’ s therapist recommended against reunification. She expressed no opposition to a grant of concurrent jurisdiction to proceed with the guardianship action and testified that, if the guardianship petition did not advance , she would be asking to move th e child “ to relative placement or foster care so [the child] doesn ’ t stay in shelter

. ” At the conclusion of the hearing, t he juvenile court attempted to quell the father ’ s concerns that the grant of concurrent jurisdiction was simply an effort to
pass on a difficult decision

. T he court stated the department would continue its involvement until an interstate compact study of the half

- sister ’ s home could be completed . The court further stated , “[E] ven if the guardianship is granted in d istrict c ourt, that doesn ’ t mean this c ourt isn ’ t going to remain as the decider of where [the child] is going to live or what services she ’ ll receive. ”4 On our de novo review, we are convinced the juvenile court ’ s grant of concurrent jurisdiction was appropriate. The concu rrent
- jurisdiction order is affirmed. AFFIRMED.