September 2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin Mckeever, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (4 pages)

            M.R. appeals an order of the district court finding he remains seriously mentally impaired.  M.R. argues the State failed to prove he lacked sufficient judgment to make reasonable decisions about his treatment, and there was not substantial evidence of dangerousness because there was no evidence of a recent overt act, attempt, or threat.  OPINION HOLDS: Because M.R.’s appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss his appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, G.M.  The father maintains there is not clear and convincing evidence he abandoned his child within the meaning of Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2017) and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence the father abandoned the child and termination is in G.M.’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Sam Thomas appeals his convictions for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, and driving while barred, contending the district court abused its discretion in failing to honor a plea agreement without giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not agree to be bound by the sentencing recommendation, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose terms of incarceration.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his minor child.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Charles K. Borth, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., Vogel, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J. (13 pages)

            A father appeals from termination of his parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and no statutory exception should be applied to prevent termination.  We find no grounds to support the father’s request for an additional six months or for a guardianship in his mother.  We affirm the juvenile court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Amy L. Zacharias, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  Special Concurrence by Danilson, C.J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals from the juvenile court order adjudicating two of his five children, E.B. and B.B., in need of assistance, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (2017).  He contends the State did not present clear and convincing evidence of physical abuse or neglect or that physical abuse or neglect were imminently likely, and continued adjudication is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find adjudication was supported as to B.B. but not E.B.  Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I write separately to expand upon why In re D.B., No.17-0740, 2017 WL 4317337, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017), does not serve to support adjudication of E.B. in this case. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (11 pages)

            The guardian ad litem for J.B., joined by the State, appeals both the district court order dismissing the State’s petition to terminate parental rights and the permanency order continuing reunification efforts with the mother.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State proved the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, we reverse the district court’s order dismissing the State’s petition and terminate the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because we find clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights were established under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2017), termination of the parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interests, reasonable services for reunification were provided, and an extension of time for reunification is not supported under the facts of the case, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the parents’ parental rights.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J. (10 pages)

           A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the State made reasonable efforts to help the mother, demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be returned to the mother’s custody, an extension of time is unwarranted, and termination is in the best interests of the children.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children.  Both parents challenge the evidence supporting the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  The father also argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, termination was not in the children’s best interests, and the court should have declined to terminate his parental rights based on the strength of the parent-child bond.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parents’ rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the order removing her children from her care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State presented sufficient evidence to justify the temporary removal of the children from the mother’s home, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018), arguing the State failed to prove P.H. could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the time.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence.  We affirm the juvenile court order terminating the mother’s parental rights.