1. Venue for delinquency proceedings shall be in the judicial district where the child is
found, where the child resides, or where the alleged delinquent act occurred.
2. The court may transfer delinquency proceedings to the court of any county having
venue at any stage in the proceeding as follows:
a. When it appears that the best interests of the child or society or the convenience of the
parties will be served by a transfer, the court may transfer the case to the court of the county
of the child’s residence.
b. With the consent of the receiving court, the court may transfer the case to the court of
the county where the child is found.
c. The court may transfer the case to the county where the alleged delinquent act occurred.
3. The court shall transfer the case by ordering the transfer and a continuance and by
forwarding to the clerk of the receiving court a certified copy of all papers filed together with
an order of transfer. The judge of the receiving court may accept the filings of the transferring
court or may direct the filing of a new petition and hear the case anew.
[C71, 73, 75, 77, §232.68 – 232.70; C79, 81, §232.10]
88 Acts, ch 1134, §49; 2025 Acts, ch 30, §48
Subsection 1 amended
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case:
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014).
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 4× “, Iowa Code § 232.10 (2)(a) (2013) (permitting a transfer of venue for juvenile court proceedings for “the best interests of the child” among other reasons); id.”
Stubbs v. Hammond, 135 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 1965).
· cites it 4× “The return to the writ states that additional service was not made on the parents for the reason the father was living in California, the mother in Georgia, neither had seen the child since April of 1963, and that neither of them had a residence in the state within the meaning…”
State of Iowa v. Andre Jerome Lyle Jr. (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 4× “, Iowa Code § 232.10 (2)(a) (2013) (permitting a transfer of venue for juvenile court proceedings for “the best interests of the child” among other reasons); id.”
In the Interest of S.H., Minor Child (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “2 They argue the State presented insufficient proof of the fourth element, which requires clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to parental custody at the present time as provided in section 232.10. 3 Iowa 2 Much of the termination hearing focused on…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.