2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (5 pages)

           A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, contending termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J. (5 pages)

           A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (7 pages)

           A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2008.  She contends (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to her custody; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; (3) termination was inappropriate, given the child’s preferences and objection to termination and the closeness of the parent-child bond; and (4) the court should have placed the child in a guardianship in lieu of terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. McCollum Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child, A.B., pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (l) (2018).  She does not contest the grounds for termination, but rather asserts the juvenile court made mistakes of fact and misapplied the law.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on the evidence reflecting the mother has not maintained contact with A.B. and has not demonstrated a likelihood of long-standing sobriety, we find termination of the mother’s parental rights to A.B. is in A.B.’s best interest.  We therefore affirm.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J. (9 pages)

           A father appeals the juvenile court order adjudicating his child a child in need of assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the juvenile court’s adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) and (c)(2) (2018) is not supported by clear and convincing evidence and reverse the ruling of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s child-in-need-of-assistance permanency order and the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the juvenile court’s permanency order and termination of the mother’s parental rights.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford 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. (10 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights in their child, and the father also appeals the termination of his rights to two additional children.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the father, the district court properly terminated his parental rights due to his substance-related disorder.  As to the mother, the district court properly terminated her rights because the same issues supporting prior terminations of her older children remain, and she is unlikely to resolve the identified issues.  The district court also properly denied both parents an additional six months to work toward reunification because there is no indication that grounds for termination will no longer exist in six months’ time.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J. (4 pages)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s motion to continue the termination hearing and the termination hearing procedure was good enough to meet minimum due process requirements, we affirm.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J. (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Iowa is R.E.’s “home state,” the district court had jurisdiction over termination proceedings.  Also, because of each parent’s individual pending criminal proceedings and lack of participation in visitation or other offered services, R.E. could not be returned at the time of the termination hearing.  Further, termination was in the child’s best interests, no factors precluded termination, the DHS made reasonable efforts towards reunification, and a six-month extension was not warranted for either parent.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (5 pages)

           A father appeals a permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of his child to her maternal aunt.  He contends (1) the child should have been placed with him during the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings and (2) the district court erred in ordering a guardianship with the aunt.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s refusal to transfer the child to the father’s custody during the proceedings as well as the court’s transfer of guardianship and custody to the maternal aunt following the permanency hearing.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J. (9 pages)

            Alicia and Andrew appeal the termination of their parental rights in their two children.  Alicia also appeals the termination of her parental rights in two additional children.  OPINION HOLDS: The children cannot be returned to Alicia’s care due to her persistent drug use and lack of home or employment.  Her parent-child bond with the children is not so strong as to preclude termination, and an additional six months to work toward reunification is unlikely to resolve Alicia’s parenting issues.  Andrew’s children cannot be returned to him due to his substance abuse and incarceration. 

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J. (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son, P.W., born April 2017.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the parents’ lack of participation in offered services, P.W. could not be returned at the time of the termination hearing.  Also, termination was in the child’s best interests and no factors precluded termination.