February 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Christina appeals the modification of a dissolution decree.  The modification transferred physical care of her seven-year-old daughter G.S. from Christina to G.S.’s father, Joshua.  Christina contends Joshua did not show a substantial change in circumstances or that he would provide superior care.  OPINION HOLDS: Joshua showed both a substantial change in circumstances and that he would provide superior care.  Christina has engaged in a course of conduct substantially interfering with Joshua’s relationship with G.S. by denying him visitation and failing to communicate effectively about her schooling and medical needs.  We find Joshua has shown he can provide superior care and support G.S.’s relationship with Christina.  We affirm the modification. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David May, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (2 pages)

            John Anderson appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Anderson’s present suit involves the same parties and same claims as the Johnson County lawsuit he previously litigated and lost.  His present suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and we therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.     

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (8 pages)

                David Arch appeals the district court’s order granting Jared White’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the parties entered a valid and enforceable settlement agreement and there was no material breach of the agreement, we affirm the decision of the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison and Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (2 pages)

            Shaquille Trashaun Wade asks us to find the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to five years in prison, after Wade pled guilty to failure to appear, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 811.2 (2017).  The State asserts the district court “balanced the positive aspects of Wade’s life with his persistent failures at probation.”  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel and Mark D. Cleve, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Jason Gryp appeals the district court’s imposition of a ten-year sentence of incarceration for his conviction for possession with intent to deliver (methamphetamine), a class “C” felony.  Gryp maintains the court should have suspended his sentence, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to place more weight on positive factors outlined in the report from the presentence investigation and failing to consider the “naturally deterrent effect” of the fact that, during the commission of this crime, Gryp was shot multiple times by the friend to whom he intended to sell methamphetamine.  OPINION HOLDS: It is the role of the sentencing court, in an exercise of its discretion, to determine the weight to place on the various considerations.  The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term of incarceration.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            Diana Hanken challenges the denial of her request to execute a new will.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Hanken did not overcome the presumption of testamentary incapacity.  We affirm the district court’s denial of Hanken’s request to make a new will.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (4 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to R.W., born in March 2016, and X.W., born in January 2017.  He argues the district court should not have found immediate termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children while granting an additional six months for the mother to work toward reunification.  Moreover, he posits a higher standard should be imposed when determining the best interests of the children when termination is only of one parent’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children and an additional six months would not extinguish the need for removal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Both parents appeal the termination of their parental rights, contending it is the child’s best interests to allow them a third extension of time to seek reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist and yet another extension is not in the child’s best interests, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights were established under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) and termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We find no reason to disturb the juvenile court’s finding that none of the exceptions to termination found in section 232.116(3) apply here, and we agree the DHS provided reasonable services for reunification.  We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing the State did not present clear and convincing proof the child could not safely be returned to his care, the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court the State demonstrated continuing safety concerns should the child be placed with the father and the closeness of the relationship does not weigh against termination, and because the father did not preserve a reasonable-efforts argument, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.  We affirm the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).