November 2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (11 pages)

            Intervenors, the maternal aunt and her husband, appeal the juvenile court decision removing the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) as the guardian of a child and placing the child in the guardianship of other relatives.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude DHS did not act unreasonably, irresponsibly, or contrary to the best interests of the child when it determined the child should be permanently placed in the home of the maternal aunt.  We reverse the juvenile court’s decision removing DHS as the guardian of the child and placing the child in the guardianship and custody of the maternal great-uncle.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to J.H.  He argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), (n), and (m) (2018).  OPINION HOLDS: Since the child need not be removed from both parents to satisfy the grounds and the child was removed from the father’s custody, we conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Daniel Kitchen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother seeks reversal or modification of juvenile court orders adjudicating her child as in need of assistance (CINA) and removing the child from the mother’s care.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the evidence supports the CINA adjudication and we affirm the dispositional order of the juvenile court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Stephen C. Clarke, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, K.S., born in 2017.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g), (h), and (l) (2018).  On appeal, the mother claims there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the statutory grounds for termination, she should be given an additional six months to work toward reunification, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the parent-child bond weighs against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights because K.S. could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing, we cannot say the mother would be in a better position to care for K.S. if given a six-month extension, termination of the mother’s rights is in K.S.’s best interests, and no factor weighs against it.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2017).  We also find termination is in the best interests of the child, and the State expended reasonable efforts toward reunification.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s failure to challenge the termination of her parental rights in the juvenile court constitutes the failure to preserve error and/or waiver.  Even assuming the mother had preserved error or not waived her claims, clear and convincing evidence shows the DHS met its statutory “reasonable efforts” obligation under section 232.102(7) (2018), termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and none of the statutory exceptions to termination apply.  We therefore affirm the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.