Opinion ID: 1595622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Propriety of the May 11, 1998 Order.

Text: As mentioned, on May 11, 1998, the district court ordered the director of DHS and the director of DOC to appear before it to determine why the State had not made the payments set out in the February 9, 1998 judgment. The plaintiffs challenge the order, contending the court did not have personal jurisdiction over them and the order did not require them to do anything. The plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari challenging this action was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the May 11 order. It is true, as the plaintiffs contend, that they were not parties to the underlying criminal action and the February 9 judgment did not order either one of the plaintiffs to do anything. However, the February 9 judgment did require the State to make the payments for Ward's care. We construe the May 11 order as one merely asking for information as to why the State had not made the payments and not one seeking to hold the plaintiffs in contempt of court. The plaintiffs were in the best position to explain why the State did not make the payments. In addition, a hearing as provided for in the May 11 order would have given the plaintiffs an opportunity to explain their position and perhaps convince the court to set aside the February 9 judgment. We conclude the district court acted legally and within its jurisdiction when it entered the May 11 order. We suggest, however, that judges refrain from ordering department heads to appear before them without offering such officials an opportunity to designate suitable representatives to appear in their stead. See In re D.C.V., 569 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 1997).