Opinion ID: 1982240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Remand to Juvenile Court.

Text: The Shanes contend the court of appeals erred in remanding to the juvenile court rather than the probate court, which entered the order in question. Iowa Code section 232.3 provides: Concurrent court proceedings. 1. During the pendency of an action under this [juvenile justice] chapter, a party to the action is estopped from litigating concurrently the custody, guardianship, or placement of a child who is the subject of the action, in a court other than the juvenile court. A district judge, district associate judge, magistrate, or judicial hospitalization referee, upon notice of the pendency of an action under this chapter, shall not issue an order, finding, or decision relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child who is the subject of the action, under any law, including but not limited to chapter 598, 598A, or 633. 2. The juvenile court with jurisdiction of the pending action under this chapter, however, may, upon the request of a party to the action or on its own motion, authorize the party to litigate concurrently in another court a specific issue relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child who is the subject of the action. Before authorizing a party to litigate a specific issue in another court, the juvenile court shall give all parties to the action an opportunity to be heard on the proposed authorization. The juvenile court may request but shall not require another court to exercise jurisdiction and adjudicate a specific issue relating to the custody, guardianship, or placement of the child. (Emphasis added.) In this case, the juvenile court entered an order allowing litigation of the specific issue of guardianship, as permitted by section 232.3(2), quoted above. But it went further, providing for complete termination of the juvenile court's involvement effective without further Order of this [juvenile] Court on the date that a dispositive order settling the matter of the guardianship of Jeremy Murphy is filed in Cerro Gordo County Probate No. 19776. We agree with the court of appeals that section 232.3(2) only allows deferral to the probate court on specific issues; it does not authorize a wholesale relinquishment of juvenile court jurisdiction. The full termination of a juvenile proceeding is provided by section 232.103(4) which provides: The court may terminate [a CHINA dispositional] order and release the child if the court finds that the purposes of the order have been accomplished and the child is no longer in need of supervision, care or treatment. In the present case, there has been no determination that Jeremy is no longer in need of supervision, care or treatment, and termination would therefore be inappropriate. We remand to the district court for entry of an order reinstating the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.