Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1390
View Summary for Case No. 18-1390
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.
Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1425
View Summary for Case No. 18-1425
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.
Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1505
View Summary for Case No. 18-1505
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.
Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1515
View Summary for Case No. 18-1515
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.
Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1524
View Summary for Case No. 18-1524
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.
Filed Nov 07, 2018
View Opinion No. 18-1556
View Summary for Case No. 18-1556
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.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 16-1425
View Summary for Case No. 16-1425
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J. Opinion by Mahan, S.J. (7 pages)
A defendant appeals his conviction of robbery in the second degree, claiming (I) there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony and prove his participation in the crime and (II) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 16-1855
View Summary for Case No. 16-1855
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mary E. Chicchelly, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (7 pages)
Ricco Thigpen appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, claiming his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to call an eyewitness-identification expert at the suppression hearing and at trial. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of the postconviction-relief application.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 17-0387
View Summary for Case No. 17-0387
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. Opinion by McDonald, J. (6 pages)
Jamie Cole appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. OPINION HOLDS: Cole’s claim that his plea counsel was ineffective is barred because Cole failed to raise that claim until this appeal. Cole’s postconviction-relief counsel was not ineffective because Cole elected to represent himself pro se. The district court substantially complied with Iowa Code section 822.7 (2015) when ruling on Cole’s application for postconviction relief.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 17-0940
View Summary for Case No. 17-0940
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ. Opinion by Vogel, P.J. (15 pages)
Ashley Holtkamp appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Nathan Holtkamp. She argues the trial court erred in finding their prenuptial agreement enforceable and in establishing Nathan’s visitation schedule with the parties’ minor children. OPINION HOLDS: Because Ashley failed to prove the prenuptial agreement was executed involuntarily, was procedurally unconscionable, or lacked a financial disclosure, we agree with the district court that the prenuptial agreement is enforceable. Additionally, we modify the visitation schedule on Tuesday nights and weekends and otherwise agree the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the children.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 17-0973
View Summary for Case No. 17-0973
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (4 pages)
Collin Rush Brantley appeals the district court’s imposition of a suspended sentence plus probation following his plea to possession of a controlled substance arguing that he was entitled to a deferred judgment. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the appellant’s conviction, judgment, and sentence.
Filed Oct 24, 2018
View Opinion No. 17-1018
View Summary for Case No. 17-1018
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, J. Special Concurrence by Doyle, J. (20 pages)
Andrew Gerth appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition alleging age discrimination against his former employer, Iowa Business Growth, Inc., and former supervisor, Dan Robeson. Gerth challenges the dismissal, but he does not dispute that the defendants were served outside of the ninety-day window. Gerth raises the following claims: (1) He argues the district court had the discretion to grant an extension even without a showing of good cause and should have done so. (2) Alternatively, he claims he established good cause for the delay. As part of this argument, he claims the ninety-day window for service did not begin until the clerk’s office issued the original notice, which in this case occurred two days after Gerth initially filed the petition—making service late by one day rather than three. He also claims the district court should have, as part of its good-cause analysis, considered the extent his rights would be prejudiced by the dismissal. (3) Finally, Gerth claims that even if good cause is necessary for an extension and he did not establish it, dismissal was inappropriate because service was only late by three days or less and the defendants were not prejudiced by the delay. OPINION HOLDS: Because a finding of good cause is required before the court extends the period to timely serve the defendants, and because Gerth has failed to establish good cause for the delay, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gerth’s petition. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur based on the current precedent cited by the majority but write specially to advocate for an amendment to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5) that would require the defendant show prejudice even in the absence of “good cause” on the part of the plaintiff in failing to timely serve.