In re Guardianship of K.E.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1481
Filed July 24, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.E., a/k/a A.E.,

S.C., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Patrick McAvan,

Judge.

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

minor child. AFFIRMED.

Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant mother.

Katelyn Kurt of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Elizabeth S. Blough of Cashatt Warren Family Law, P.C., Des Moines,

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.*

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

(2024).
2

BADDING, Presiding Judge.

The juvenile court established a guardianship under Iowa Code

section 232D.204(2) (2023) for a transgender youth with dysregulated mood

disorder and suicidal ideations. The court appointed Elliot and Jessica—the

parents of the child’s best friend—as the child’s guardians. The child’s father,

Jacob, consented to the guardianship; the child’s mother, Savannah, did not.

At the guardianship hearing, the mother testified: “I wish we could find [the

child] somewhere else to live.” Yet on appeal, she claims the juvenile court erred

in finding the guardianship was “the answer to her wish.” Because there is clear

and convincing evidence that the mother was not willing or able to exercise the

powers the court granted to the guardians and the guardianship is in the child’s

best interest, we affirm upon our de novo review of the record.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In May 2023, Elliot and Jessica petitioned to be appointed guardians of

K.E.,1 born in 2008. K.E.’s parents are Jacob and Savannah. They separated

when K.E. was two or three years old. From then until about two years before the

petition was filed, K.E. lived with Savannah during the week and with Jacob on the

weekends. But then one night after K.E. and Savannah argued, Jacob testified

that Savannah “came to my house probably about 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and

just kind of dropped him off and said, ‘He’s your problem now.’” Savannah had

1 These are the initials for the child’s legal name, although the child goes by a

different name now. The child’s preferred pronouns are he, him, and his, which is
what the parties mostly used during the juvenile court proceedings.
3

limited contact with K.E. after that, texting Jacob at one point that the child was

“mean, hateful, cruel, and just plain nasty. I am done.”

Savannah testified that K.E. was diagnosed with dysregulated mood

disorder at age eight, which she compared to “bipolarism in children.” K.E. was

hospitalized for a time and placed on medication. While K.E. “always

had . . . problems controlling [his] emotions,” according to Savannah, they had a

good relationship until Savannah suffered a traumatic brain injury from a car

accident in October 2020. After that, Savannah testified their relationship changed

because K.E. was mad that Savannah asked him “to help around the house more

and do chores more.” Jacob, however, said K.E.’s relationship with Savannah was

never good. Savannah testified that she often called the police or Jacob for

assistance with K.E. because the child was “beating me, hurting me, and

everything.”

Jacob enrolled K.E. in a different school after the child came to live with him.

The school’s principal testified that although K.E. was “a very bright individual, very

inquisitive, very open-minded,” he was also “a very troubled student in terms of

making friends, fitting in.” When K.E. first arrived at the school, the child was

reclusive and “kind of ostracized” by the other students. K.E. was often “not

wanting to go to class, hiding out in the bathroom, always wanting to wear their

hood in school.” He had poor attendance and grades, with a 0.53 grade point

average his freshman year of high school. K.E. struggled with self-harm and

threatened to commit suicide on more than one occasion.

Things got better for K.E. after he became friends with O.Z., one of Elliot

and Jessica’s children. The two children met in 2021 while they were still in middle
4

school. K.E. started going to Elliot and Jessica’s house on Friday evenings for

dinner. Soon, according to Elliot, “he was coming over every single day,” though

aside from some sleepovers with O.Z., he would go back to Jacob’s house at night.

Jessica testified they started referring to K.E. as their “bonus kid”:

[W]e felt like he was part of our family when he was spending
regular time with us at our home in Iowa. He fits right in with the
other kids, shares interests, and enjoys spending time with us, so we
started including him in family activities like going to the movies or
going out to meals. He was such a pleasure to have with us that we
continued to include him in our activities.

K.E.’s principal testified that as the child started spending more time with

Elliot and Jessica’s family, he started improving at school: “[H]e had probably more

of a little bit of anchor with [O.Z.’s] family, a little bit more stability.” K.E.’s father

noticed an improvement too, describing Elliot and Jessica as “just really good

people, and they have already done a lot to help [K.E.] grow as a person. . . . I

noticed just a night and day difference with [K.E.’s] attitude. He’s much more polite,

very calm.”

In the spring of 2023, Elliot and Jessica decided to move their family to

Connecticut where Elliot grew up. Jessica is an obstetrician gynecologist and

accepted a position at a local hospital. When they told K.E. that they were moving,

the child told them that he wanted to go with them. So Elliot and Jessica

approached Jacob with the idea. He supported it because K.E. had “been

struggling in his current living environment.” Jacob was “afraid that if K.E. doesn’t

get out of here and go, that some day I’m going to come home and find him dead.”

But Savannah was opposed. She told Elliot that K.E. “is violent and destructive

and she didn’t want to be responsible if he damaged our property or hurt us. She
5

also said that as a mother, you know, if something were to happen to him, that she

wanted to be able to be here.” Elliot and Jessica intended to fly K.E. home for the

holidays or other visits at their expense, and they offered to fly Savannah out if

something were to happen with K.E. But Savannah was convinced they were

“going to alienate me from my child.”

Elliot and Jessica moved to Connecticut with their three children in June,

while their guardianship petition was pending. K.E. came to visit them twice,

staying for two weeks each time. Elliot testified that K.E. was a different person in

Connecticut:

I don’t think that I ever saw his face in Iowa because he had
his hair swept over his eyes because he was hiding his face. . . .
He’s cut his hair now in the front so we can see his face, because he
feels comfortable and happy. He told me that in Iowa he would
spend most of the time daydreaming about a better life because he
was just so upset and he didn’t want to go outside, but since he’s
come here, he said he doesn’t have time or really any need to
daydream because he’s just enjoying his life so much.

The family planned to enroll K.E. in the same high school their children were

going to attend. That school had counselors who were “trained in helping LGBTQ+

kids,” with proactive policies to help transgender children. K.E.’s principal in Iowa

testified that the child would “absolutely” benefit from those resources, which

exceeded what his school could offer. He explained that because of K.E.’s failing

grades freshman year, the child would have to complete an online credit recovery

program. But the principal said the success rate for that program was not good.

If their petition was granted, Elliot and Jessica planned to get K.E. “tested for

decoding and comprehension issues.” As a former high school teacher turned
6

stay-at-home father,2 Elliot planned “to work very, very closely with [K.E.] to get

him back on track,” in addition to seeking out peer tutoring at the high school.

Jessica hoped that “the stability of having a safe place to live and be accepted and

friends will allow [K.E.] to put energy into his studies, and that will improve his

attendance.” They also intended to get K.E. in therapy and work with him at home

on self-regulation and breathing techniques to help with his anxiety.

In contrast, Savannah had no plan for K.E. if he stayed in Iowa, testifying:

“I don’t know where to put [him].” She believed that K.E. needed to be admitted to

“a counseling facility,” like Orchard Place, “to get deep counseling and get people

to help teach [him] things and kind of discover and find” himself. When K.E. was

done at the facility, Savannah testified he could live with her, explaining: “I do want

[K.E.] living with me. I just don’t want to be abused in my home, and I don’t want

to put my other children at risk.” Alternatively, Savannah suggested that K.E. could

enroll in a Job Corps program in Kansas City when he was sixteen.

The court visitor authored a report after speaking to K.E., his parents, Elliot,

Jessica, and K.E.’s high school principal. The visitor detailed her conversation

with K.E., who

expressed his anxiety around the bullying he experiences in Iowa,
and his difficulty to participate in school with a looming sense that he
is being judged by both students and faculty members. He shared
that he feels safe with his father, but he does not have the resources
to feel safe in the community.

But in Connecticut, K.E. told the visitor that he “was excited to be in a place where

there were more people like him.” He was looking forward to attending the high

2 Elliot has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and psychology from Yale University,

and a master’s in journalism from the University of California, Berkeley.
7

school there, “specifically because of the opportunities in biology, home

economics, theater, and other extracurricular activities.” K.E. also “spoke very

highly of the counseling opportunities at the high school,” which Jacob agreed were

greater than those offered at K.E.’s school in Iowa. In all, K.E. told the visitor that

he was “very optimistic about this new school and the chance to make new friends.”

The visitor recommended granting Elliot and Jessica’s guardianship petition,

noting that while Savannah offered alternatives to the guardianship, none were

appropriate “given [K.E.’s] circumstances. It is clear she does not want [K.E.] to

go to Connecticut, and she does not necessarily want [K.E.] to continue living with

his father; however, she also does not want [K.E.] to live with her.”

After a hearing on the petition in August, the juvenile court appointed Elliot

and Jessica as K.E.’s guardians under Iowa Code section 232D.204(2), ruling:

The evidence is both clear and convincing that Savannah is
unable to exercise the power the court will grant a guardian if the
court appoints a guardian. Savannah has taken a hands off
approach to parenting [K.E.] in the past two years. . . .
. . . . Savannah repeatedly stated during the hearing that she
does not know what to do to parent [K.E.], to access additional
services, or to deal with the violent behaviors. Savannah
acknowledges she is unable to have [K.E.] safely in her home at this
time. Savannah is fearful of [K.E.] She does not like being alone
with [K.E.] She is willing to allow him to go somewhere as long as it
is within driving distance so she can visit, testifying, “I wish there was
someplace else for [him] to go.”
This guardianship petition is the answer to her wish. It is
somewhere where [K.E.] can go to get services that directly address
his needs. It is safe, and with people with whom he is comfortable.
The evidence is clear and convincing that appointment of a guardian
for [K.E] is in his best interest.

Savannah appeals.
8

II. Standard of Review

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

de novo.” In re Guardianship of B.B., No. 21–0992, 2022 WL 523325, at *3 (Iowa

Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2022). “We give weight to the juvenile court’s factual findings,

but we are not bound by them.” In re Guardianship of L.Y., 968 N.W.2d 882, 892

(Iowa 2022).

III. Analysis

Iowa Code section 232D.204(2) allows the juvenile court to appoint a

guardian for a minor child without parental consent

if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence all of the following:
a. No parent having legal custody of the minor is willing or able
to exercise the power the court will grant to the guardian if the court
appoints a guardian.
b. Appointment of a guardian for the minor is in the best
interest of the minor.

Without expressly addressing these elements, Savannah claims the

juvenile court erred in finding a guardianship was necessary because she “is

clearly familiar with the child’s behavior, personality, and mental health struggles”

since K.E. lived with her for most of his life. While she may be familiar with those

issues, the evidence supported the court visitor’s observation that Savannah

has not taken any steps to address [K.E.’s] needs, make him feel
safe, or provide him with a positive, nurturing environment. This
would suggest that Savannah is either incapable of or unwilling to
minister to the best interests of the child. Savannah’s claims to have
offered an opportunity to attend family therapy do not overcome the
reality that nothing has been done to repair the relationship. At best,
an attitude of indifference has been shown to [K.E.] that has left him
feeling unsupported and unappreciated by his mother. . . .
Savannah noted that she is afraid of [K.E.], and [K.E.] is openly
resisting contact with his mother.
9

Elliot and Jessica presented clear and convincing evidence that Savannah

was not able or willing to provide K.E. with the most basic power granted to a

guardian—providing the child with a permanent residence. See Iowa Code

§ 232D.401(3)(a). Consistent with her testimony at trial, Savannah told the child

in a text message before the hearing that “I don’t think you living here is a good

idea unless we actually set up some sort of family counseling.” But Savannah did

not take any steps to set up that counseling, testifying that she removed the child

from her medical insurance after the child went to live with Jacob, see id.

§ 232D.401(3)(b), and he would not cooperate with family counseling. She

repeated that claim in a text message to the child, telling him: “Your dad really

should set up a therapy appointment between the two of us instead of encouraging

you to [h]ate me.” In response, the child said: “We tried to, you got angry [when]

the therapist said you needed help too . . . and threw a fit.”

Jacob testified that in the two years since K.E. came to live with him,

Savannah had not played an active role in his life. Although he told Savannah a

few times about K.E.’s failing grades, Savannah claimed the first time she found

out the child had a 0.53 grade point average was at the hearing. See id.

§ 232D.401(3)(c). Jacob also testified that almost every visit between K.E. and his

mother ends with an argument “and the time gets cut short.” Savannah seemed

to agree, testifying K.E. is “constantly just angry” and “won’t calm down at my

house.” Their most recent visit in May ended when K.E. dug his nails into his skin,

scratched himself, and “started screaming and cussing” at her while they were

discussing Connecticut. So Savannah testified that she “just stopped everything

we were doing and took [him] home because I didn’t know what else to do.” This
10

was a common refrain for Savannah at trial, as the juvenile court found: “Savannah

testified, ‘I don’t know what to do’ on multiple occasions. She testified that she

does not know why [K.E.] is so mean and does not know how to help him.”

Savannah argues that a “parent should not be penalized for attempting to

seek help for their child.” That’s true. See In re Guardianship of Sams, 256

N.W.2d 570, 573 (Iowa 1977) (“Our cases have emphasized that parents should

be encouraged in time of need to look for help in caring for their children without

risking loss of custody.”). But Savannah didn’t really seek help for K.E.—instead,

she washed her hands of him, at least until the guardianship petition was filed.

She was content until then to let Jacob provide K.E. with a home, attend to his

daily care, arrange for his medical care, and manage his educational needs. See

B.B., 2022 WL 523325, at *4 (finding the parental preference did not apply when

a father, by his inaction, “demonstrated a lack of consistent parental participation”

in the child’s life). Although Savannah did not want K.E. to move to Connecticut,

she admitted, “I don’t know where is a good place for my child to live.” Yet she

argues the “fact that [Elliot and Jessica] believe that they have more resources and

a better plan for the youth does not remove the fact that the mother retains parental

rights and the constitutional authority to make decisions for her child.” See L.Y.,

968 N.W.2d at 895 (“In light of parents’ fundamental liberty interests in the care,

custody, and control of their children and the presumption that fit parents act in

their children’s best interests, we must give ‘due regard for the superior rights of a

fit, proper, and suitable parent’ over all others.” (citation omitted)).

“Though no longer explicit in the statute, the parental preference remains.”

B.B., 2022 WL 523325, at *3 (citing L.Y., 968 N.W.2d at 894). But a parent like
11

Savannah, who “has taken an extended holiday from the responsibilities of

parenthood, may not take advantage of the parental preference for custody.” Id.

(cleaned up). While Savannah claims on appeal that she was “able and willing to

exercise the powers” granted to Elliot and Jessica, clear and convincing evidence

showed that was not the case.

We also agree with the juvenile court that appointing Elliot and Jessica as

K.E.’s guardians is in his best interest, although Savannah does not challenge that

conclusion on appeal. As Elliot testified at trial,

I want to be [K.E.’s] guardian because I feel like if he were to
go back to Iowa, he’s at very high risk for suicide, and I think here he
will have so much more chances. He’s so much happier and it’s a
better environment for him, that I think he has a really good chance
to succeed and hopefully go to college.

Jacob shared those same hopes for K.E., testifying that although his “stomach has

been in knots” because he will miss K.E., “I don’t want him to feel like there is no

hope, and I think that’s exactly what this kid needs, is some hope.”

We agree and affirm the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.