Iowa adds discretionary appointment of counsel for kids in guardianship cases

05/02/2019 , Iowa , Legislation , Guardianship/Conservatorship of Children - Child (incomplete)

Guardianship establishment

Iowa provides for the discretionary appointment of counsel for children in guardianship matters.  In 2019, Iowa enacted the Iowa Minor Guardianship Proceedings Act, which provides:

1. Upon the filing of a petition for appointment of a guardian pursuant to section 232D.301, the court shall appoint an attorney for the minor, if the court determines that the interests of the minor are or may be inadequately represented.

2. An attorney representing the minor shall advocate for the wishes of the minor to the extent that those wishes are reasonably ascertainable and advocate for best interest of the minor if the wishes of the minor are not reasonably ascertainable.

Iowa Code § 232D.303 (emphasis added).

Conservatorship establishment

It appears that the court may appoint counsel for minors subject to conservatorship proceedings as well.  A separate area of the code covers conservatorships of both adults and children. See Iowa Code § 633.561.  Although the statute provides a right to counsel to adult respondents, it is silent about appointment of counsel for minors. Id. at (1) (“If the respondent is an adult and is not the petitioner, the respondent is entitled to representation by an attorney…”).  However, paragraph (6) of the section does not explicitly state that it is limited to adult respondents and seems to provide for discretionary appointment “in any proceedings in a guardianship or conservatorship” where “the court determines that it would be in the respondent’s best interests to have legal representation.”

Appointment of Counsel: Discretionary
Qualified: No
? If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.