1. This chapter* shall be construed liberally. The best interest of the person to be adopted
shall be the paramount consideration in interpreting this chapter. However, the interests
of the adopting parents shall be given due consideration in this interpretation. However, in
determining the best interest of the person to be adopted and the interests of the adopting
parents, any evidence of interests relating to a period of time during which the person to be
adopted is placed with prospective adoptive parents and during which the placement is not
in compliance with the law, adoption procedures, or any action by the juvenile court or court,
shall not be considered in the determination.
2. If a proceeding held under this chapter involves an Indian child as defined in section
232B.3 and the proceeding is subject to the Iowa Indian child welfare Act under chapter
232B, the proceeding and other actions taken in connection with the proceeding or this
chapter shall comply with chapter 232B. In any proceeding held or action taken under this
chapter involving an Indian child, the applicable requirements of the federal Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-89, shall be applied to the proceeding or action in
a manner that complies with chapter 232B and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, Pub.
L. No. 95-608.
[C77, 79, 81, §600.1]
94 Acts, ch 1174, §6, 22; 2000 Acts, ch 1145, §2; 2003 Acts, ch 153, §16; 2014 Acts, ch 1026,
§125; 2018 Acts, ch 1041, §127
*Enacted as sections 600.1 – 600.16, Code 1977
\n
Notes of Decisions
Engstrom v. State, 461 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1990).
· cites it 2× “Adoptive parents are considered secondarily in section 600.1 which provides that the welfare of the adopted person shall be given paramount consideration in interpreting this chapter, but that “the interest of the adopting parents are to be given due consideration.”
Schott v. Schott, 744 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa 2008).
· cites it 2× “” The court in both decrees referred to the mandate found in section 600.1 which requires chapter 600 to be “construed liberally” with “paramount consideration” being “the best interest of the person to be adopted.”
Matter of Adoption of Gardiner, 287 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 2× “Although section 600.1 states that the “welfare of the person to be adopted shall be the paramount consideration in interpreting this division,” it goes on to provide that “the interests of the adopting parents shall be given due consideration in this interpretation.”
In Re Clausen, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993).
“[30] The DeBoers also include arguments to the effect that even under Iowa law, a best interests hearing was required, citing several cases, Halstead v Halstead, 259 Iowa 526 ; 144 NW2d 861 (1966); Painter v Bannister, 258 Iowa 1390 ; 140 NW2d 152 (1966), and statutes, Iowa Code…”
In Re Adoption of Cheney, 59 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 1953).
· cites it 4× “Code section 600.1 requires the adoption petition to state: "* * * if the child be an orphan the name and place of residence of its guardian, if any, and if none, of its next of kin; the name of any licensed child-placing agency as defined in chapter 238 [Code 1946 (now 1950)],…”
In Re the Adoption of M.M.B., 376 N.W.2d 900 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 2× “It appears that prior to a 1977 amendment to section 600.1 l(2)(a), which added the express exception discussed above, a person whose parental rights had been terminated was not entitled to receive notice.”
Corbett v. Stergios, 137 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1965).
· cites it 2× “” 2) Under our Code section 600.1 the spouse of the adoptive parent shall join in the petition for adoption unless such spouse is a natural parent of the child.”
In re Adoption of Perkins, 49 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 1951).
“Sections 600.1, 600.2 and 600.5, 1950 Code, which are part of our present adoption statutes, all support this view.”
In Re Adoption of Cheney, 56 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 1952).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly we are not required to determine whether an adoption decree is void if the child has not resided in the proposed home for the immediately past twelve months.”
DeBoer v. Schmidt, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993).
“footnote label="30"> The DeBoers also include arguments to the effect that even under Iowa law, a best interests hearing was required, citing several cases, Halstead v Halstead, 259 Iowa 526 ; 144 NW2d 861 (1966); Painter v Bannister, 258 Iowa 1390 ; 140 NW2d 152 (1966), and…”
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.