January 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the termination of their respective parental rights in their child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination of both parents’ parental rights.  Termination is in the child’s best interest, and the mother’s bond with the child is not so strong as to preclude termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their minor children, L.V.1, M.V., and L.V.2.  Both argue termination is not in the best interests of the children and the State failed to provide adequate services to both parents.  OPINION HOLDS: We find neither argument precludes termination and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (5 pages)

            A father and mother each appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination and termination is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The trial court correctly found by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing.  The trial court was correct in denying the mother an additional six months for reunification.  Termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination is in the children’s best interests and no exceptions apply.  We affirm the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Amy L. Zacharias, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the children could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing, the grounds for termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018) have been met.  The evidence shows that termination is in the children’s best interests, and we decline to apply the exception to termination provided in section 232.116(3)(c).  The State made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and we decline to delay termination an additional six months.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in her children.  The father appeals the termination of his rights in his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence supports the statutory ground authorizing the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Termination of both parents’ rights is in the best interest of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  The father of one of the children appeals the termination of his parental rights.  Both parents argue the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination and they should be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the parents’ failure to address the issues of substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health disorders that led to the initial removal, the State showed by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to either parent at the time of the termination hearing due to a risk of further harm.  The parents’ history and recent circumstances served to show an extension of six months was not warranted.  We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan F. Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to three children.  He contends the State did not prove the children could not be returned to him at the present time and their best interests required not terminating his rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father failed until very recently to address his substance-abuse and domestic-violence issues; he does not currently live in his own home and continues to associate with active drug users.  On this record, we conclude he cannot resume care of the children.  The evidence supports this conclusion by clear and convincing evidence.  In addition, the children’s best interests are served by severing the parental relationship.  We affirm.