2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

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

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children, contending: (1) the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, (2) termination is not in the best interests of the children, and (3) the statutory exception contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2018) should be applied to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018) by clear and convincing evidence, the mother was provided reasonable efforts, and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication order temporarily removing his children from his care and the dispositional order continuing their removal.  OPINION HOLDS:  The father’s claim regarding the adjudication order is moot.  The children’s continued removal from the father’s care is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. McCollum Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (7 pages)

            Michelle appeals the termination of her parental rights in her child.  Michelle’s parents, as intervenors, appeal the placement of the child’s custody and control with the Iowa Department of Human Services (IDHS) instead of them.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be returned to the mother’s care without continued risk of harm.  Termination was appropriate.  Because the intervenors failed to show they could provide adequate care for the child, we conclude the juvenile court did not err in placing custody and control of the child with IDHS.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Deborah F. Minot, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Termination of her rights is in the children’s best interests.  The mother has not met her burden to establish an exception to termination should be applied.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Monty W. Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J. (7 pages)

           The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to B.C., born in 2011, arguing he can care for his child at present.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the trial court that the child cannot be returned to the father at present without risk of adjudicatory harm.  Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018) and termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children.  OPINION HOLDS: On de novo review of the evidence admitted properly at the termination hearing, we conclude clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) and delaying termination is contrary to the children’s best interests.  The record shows that in spite of the efforts made to preserve the family, the children could not be returned to the care of either the mother or the father at the time of the termination hearing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father’s parental rights were properly terminated under section 232.116(1)(h) (2018), no exceptions apply, and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  conditionally affirmed and remanded.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing the juvenile court erred in three respects: First, by failing to send the proper notice under the Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to the Native American tribe of his claimed ancestry; second, by terminating his parental rights when the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with his son as required by Iowa Code section 232.102(6)(b) (2018); and third, by finding the State proved the child could not be returned to his custody.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father’s affidavit regarding his Native American heritage places the court on alert the child may have Native American heritage, triggering the tribal notice requirements of the Iowa ICWA; but the father failed to preserve error on his reasonable-efforts claim, and the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we conditionally affirm, but remand for the purpose of providing proper notice to any interested Indian tribe.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to A.W., born in March 2017.  The father argues: (1) the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the grounds for termination, (2) termination is not in the child’s best interests, (3) statutory exceptions to termination apply, and (4) additional time for reunification should be granted.  The mother challenges only the court’s denial of a six-month extension.  OPINION HOLDS: We find by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for terminating the father’s rights, termination is in A.W.’s best interests, and no statutory exceptions to termination apply.  We decline to grant either parent an extension and affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s and mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in her child.  She challenges certain statutory grounds for termination and requests an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother does not challenge all statutory bases relied upon, we terminate based on those grounds she did not challenge without further consideration.  We find an additional six months would be inappropriate because the grounds for termination will likely remain.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J.  (3 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to N.M.  He argues termination is not in the child’s best interests and he asks for additional time for reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.