placement hearing in Iowa

2023See In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (holding that a parent whose rights were terminated had no right to participate in a placement hearing because “termination of [the mother’s] rights concerning these three children divest[ed] her of all privileges, duties, and powers with respect to the children”); In re D.B., 483 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (refusing to consider claim about placement, made by parent whose rights were terminated, because termination divested the parent of “any legally recognizable interest she would have concerning the guardianship or custody of”

2020See In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (concluding the parent had no right to participate in a placement hearing following termination because “[t]he termination of [the mother’s] rights concerning these three children divest[ed] her of all privileges, duties, and powers with respect to the children.”); In re D.B., 483 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (refusing to consider mother’s argument about where child should be placed following termination because the proper termination of the mother’s rights divested her of “any legally recognizable interest she would have concernin

2023See In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (holding that a parent whose rights were terminated had no right to participate in a placement hearing because “termination of [the mother’s] rights concerning these three children divest[ed] her of all privileges, duties, and powers with respect to the children”); In re D.B., 483 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (refusing to consider claim about placement, made by parent whose rights were terminated, because termination divested the parent of “any legally recognizable interest she would have concerning the guardianship or custody of”

2020See In re K.A., 516 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (concluding the parent had no right to participate in a placement hearing following termination because “[t]he termination of [the mother’s] rights concerning these three children divest[ed] her of all privileges, duties, and powers with respect to the children.”); In re D.B., 483 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (refusing to consider mother’s argument about where child should be placed following termination because the proper termination of the mother’s rights divested her of “any legally recognizable interest she would have concernin

2022The Committee on the Bill of Rights at the Iowa Constitutional Convention of 1857 desired to have “the best and most clearly defined Bill of Rights.” 1 The Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Iowa 100 (W.

2022The Committee on the Bill of Rights at the Iowa Constitutional Convention of 1857 desired to have “the best and most clearly defined Bill of Rights.” 1 The Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Iowa 100 (W.

2016See id. § 229.37 (“All persons confined as seriously mentally impaired shall be entitled to the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus . . . .”); In re S.M., No. 12-1983, 2014 WL 69773 , at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014) (“S.M.’s request for a placement hearing could be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 229.37.”); In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792, 794-95 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (treating application for review of commitment as a petition for writ of habeas corpus); Hackett v. State, 354 N.W.2d 247, 249 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) (noting postconviction procedures “specifically

2016It states in part, “If a respondent appeals to the supreme court regarding a placement order, the respondent shall remain in placement unless the supreme court orders otherwise.” 3 12-1983, 2014 WL 69773 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014) (“S.M.’s request for a placement hearing could be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 229.37.”); In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (“[A]n application requesting to be released from inpatient treatment should be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”).

2017Civil commitment “constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979).

2016See id. § 229.37 (“All persons confined as seriously mentally impaired shall be entitled to the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus . . . .”); In re S.M., No. 12-1983, 2014 WL 69773 , at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014) (“S.M.’s request for a placement hearing could be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 229.37.”); In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792, 794-95 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (treating application for review of commitment as a petition for writ of habeas corpus); Hackett v. State, 354 N.W.2d 247, 249 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) (noting postconviction procedures “specifically

2016Unfortunately, it’s making this one harder.” The juvenile court granted the motion to intervene but determined, “at the present time, it is in the child’s best interest to remain in her current placement.” The court found the DHS would remain R.H.’s guardian and “determine through its processes who should adopt this child.” On appeal, the intervenors contend R.H.’s current placement with Colleen and Earl “defies the requirements of least restrictive placement.” They cite In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d at 97 , for the proposition that “chapter 232 favors relative placements over nonrelative placements.