2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (3 pages)

            A defendant challenges the district court’s determination that he is reasonably able to pay restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record does not contain any evidence supporting the district court’s finding that the defendant is reasonably able to pay restitution, that portion of the sentence is vacated.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pocahontas County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

           Following the entry of a dispositional order, a father appeals a prior juvenile court order adjudicating his children to be children in need of assistance (CINA).  He complains the CINA petition did not provide him with constitutionally adequate notice of the specific acts or omissions he was alleged to have engaged in that would support adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(1) (2017).  OPINION HOLDS: We find the notice provided to the father in this case was constitutionally inadequate.  We therefore reverse the orders of adjudication, without prejudice. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights in his daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds authorizing the termination of the father's parental rights.  The termination was in the best interest of the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Julie Schumacher, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the order modifying the dispositional order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: A. Because the juvenile court did not continue the dispositional order past the statutory limit, it properly denied the mother’s motion to terminate the dispositional order on this basis.  B. Clear and convincing evidence established the grounds for modifying the dispositional order to transfer legal custody of the child because the efforts made to effect the purposes of the dispositional order had been unsuccessful and the child was at risk of suffering harmful effects as a result of a mental injury if the child remained in the mother’s care.  C. The juvenile court properly imposed terms and conditions on the mother as part of its dispositional order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.  The mother does not dispute the existence of the grounds for termination.  However, she does challenge the cessation of reasonable efforts by the department of human services (DHS) upon the juvenile court’s oral statement of termination of parental rights in May 2017.  She also asserts the juvenile court erred in denying her July 1, 2018 motion to reopen the record and in failing to give her additional time to seek reunification with her children.  OPINION HOLDS: We express our displeasure with the juvenile court’s excuses for failing to provide a timely written order terminating the mother’s parental rights.  We will not prolong any further the children’s family insecurity.  We conclude the DHS reasonably ceased providing services after the court’s oral rendition of its ruling.  It was well beyond a reasonable time to consider additional evidence. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the order terminating their parental rights in their two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the statutory grounds authorizing termination of the mother and father’s parental rights.  The termination is in the best interest of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find an extension to work toward reunification is not warranted, the evidence supports termination, termination is in the child’s best interest, and no exceptions apply.  We affirm the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS:  Upon our de novo review, we find the State proved grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018); it is in the child’s best interests to terminate parental rights; and relative placement does not obviate the need for termination in this case.  We affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

                J.W. was found to be a child in need of assistance based on the mother’s neglect of J.W.  Following an adjudication and dispositional hearing, the father of J.W. appeals.  He asserts the district court could not “remove” the child from him because he had no actual or legal custody of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find this issue is not ripe for review.  We therefore affirm the adjudicatory and dispositional order of the district court.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I believe the issue of the child’s removal from the father is ripe for review.  I would affirm the removal order contained within the dispositional order on the merits; the child was formally removed from the father, and the father conceded he was not in a position to assume custody of her.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (6 pages)

           A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He claims termination is not in the children’s best interests, a statutory exception to termination applies, and he should be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The father waived his best-interests claim, no statutory exceptions to termination apply, and an extension is not warranted under the circumstances of this case.  We therefore affirm the order terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages). 

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination, the department did not violate its reasonable-efforts mandate, termination was in the children’s best interests, and an extension of time was not warranted.  We affirm the termination of the parents’ rights to their children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (10 pages)

            The mother and father of three children separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights.  Both contend there was not clear and convincing evidence their children could not be returned to their care at the time of the termination hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of both parents’ parental rights and affirm.