November 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  May, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            Marvin Mitchell appeals the denial of his motion to vacate the order granting summary judgment for the defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mitchell presented no newly discovered evidence, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying Mitchell’s motion to vacate the summary judgment ruling. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Heidi Kirsch challenges provisions of a dissolution decree awarding spousal support to William and the set-aside as an inheritance of an investment account.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the inheritance set-aside and affirm the spousal support award.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  Dissent by Greer, J.  (13 pages)

            The mother of twelve-year-old S.P. appeals from the termination of her parental rights in a private action brought by the father.  The mother challenges the district court’s determinations she abandoned S.P., pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2018), and that termination of her parental rights is in S.P.’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination of the mother’s parental rights is not in S.P.’s best interests, we reverse the district court decision terminating the mother’s parental rights and remand for dismissal of the father’s petition.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would affirm the district court ruling that terminated the mother’s parental rights.  The record here contains no explanation for the mother’s disappearance from S.P.’s life for over ten months.  To extend that history is not in the best interests of this child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a permanency review order entered in the child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that the Iowa Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to return the children to the mother’s care.  We cannot find the need for removal will disappear if we delay permanency for six more months, and we therefore decline to continue placement.  We affirm the permanency review order transferring sole custody of S.G. to her father and guardianship and custody of L.B.-A. to his foster parents.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Amy Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the State proved the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing given her relapses and dishonesty about her alcohol use.  We agree with the juvenile court that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests and the bond between the parent and child did not outweigh the child’s need for permanency, given the time the mother had been provided and her long history of alcohol use.  For those reasons, we agree with the juvenile court that no additional time was warranted.  So we affirm the juvenile court’s ruling in all respects.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The mother and father of P.R. separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court that neither parent has the ability to care safely for the child and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child arguing the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State proved statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019) with regard to the mother, termination was in the child’s best interests, and DHS provided reasonable efforts toward reunification.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights and none of the statutory provisions to avoid termination applies.  Termination of the mother’s rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner and Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication concerning his children.  OPINION HOLDS:  The father did not preserve error on his claim a forensic interview was improperly admitted into evidence.  We affirm the juvenile court decisions adjudicating the children to be in need of assistance and denying the father’s request to cancel a protective order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the modification of the permanency goal in child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court did not specifically rule on the mother’s request for additional time for the permanency hearing, but the court extended the time originally scheduled for the hearing and we conclude the court’s decision to proceed with the hearing did not result in injustice to the mother.  We conclude the modification of the permanency goal to remain in the father’s care rather than reunification with the mother is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, arguing the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, termination was not in the child’s best interests, and that an exception to termination should have been invoked that would have placed the child with his aunt.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of parental rights to the child.