Background
V.H.’s mother died in a car crash when V.H. was two months old. The father soon concluded that he could not care for the child and placed her with his cousin under a power of attorney, without establishing a guardianship.
The child’s maternal aunt petitioned for guardianship in May 2025. The father agreed a guardianship was needed but asked the juvenile court to appoint his cousin instead. Finding both women suitable, the juvenile court appointed the aunt, citing concerns that the cousin had restricted some contact with the mother’s family, had previously relinquished another guardianship, and had not promptly raised concerns about the child’s car seat. The court ordered visitation for the father and cousin and directed that the cousin be considered for childcare before others.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. Under Iowa Code section 232D.308, where neither statutory preference applies, the determinative consideration in choosing among qualified and suitable guardians is the child’s best interests—not a parent’s preferred candidate. The court held that the juvenile court applied the correct standard.
On de novo review, the appellate court agreed that the maternal aunt was better positioned to meet the child’s emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs and to preserve her relationships with both sides of the family. The father’s constitutional argument concerning his right to direct his child’s care was not preserved because he did not raise it before the juvenile court.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s preferred guardian does not control the selection between qualified candidates when no statutory preference applies.
- The child’s best interests govern the choice of guardian under Iowa’s minor-guardianship statute.
- An appellate court will not consider a constitutional claim that was not raised and decided in the juvenile court.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Iowa courts selecting a guardian for a minor must focus on which candidate can best serve the child, even when a parent agrees that a guardianship is necessary and favors another qualified person. The ruling also underscores the importance of preserving constitutional objections in the trial court.