February 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            B.B.P. appeals the district court ruling she is seriously mentally impaired and must undertake further evaluation at a local medical facility.  She does not challenge the court’s substantive findings but maintains the application for her involuntary commitment should have been dismissed, as the commitment hearing took place more than five days after the court issued an order for her immediate custody due to serious mental impairment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err in denying B.B.-P.’s motion to dismiss the application alleging she is seriously mentally impaired, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (11 pages)

            Amber Burington appeals certain provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Christopher (Chris) Burington.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the district court’s decision placing the children in the parties’ joint physical care.  We find the court did not improperly value the assets awarded to Chris and no offset needs to be made for the cash values of the parties’ life insurance policies.  The property division should be modified to set aside to Amber $20,000 from the value of her 401(k) account in recognition of her premarital assets.  In order to equalize the parties’ 401(k) accounts, Chris should receive $11,899 from Amber’s 401(k) through a qualified domestic relations order.  We affirm the district court’s decision denying Amber’s request to require Chris to maintain a life insurance policy naming the children as beneficiaries.  We determine each party should pay his or her own appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  She contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child and prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.  Further, she contends termination is not in the best interests of the child and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother waived her reasonable-efforts challenge.  We find the State met its burden for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2017) and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We conclude an extension of time is not warranted in this case.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  Sufficient evidence supports the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.  The mother’s bond with the child does not preclude termination of her parental rights.

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

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to B.H. and J.R., born in 2008 and 2009, respectively.  The mother maintains there is not clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court’s admission of messages between the mother and her paramour is not improper in juvenile proceedings.  The children cannot be returned to the mother’s care, and termination of her parental rights is in their best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to C.O., born in August 2017.  She argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (g), and (h) (2018).  In addition, she asserts termination is not in the best interests of the child and the willingness of a relative to assume legal custody precludes termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a).  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights, termination is in the best interests of the child, and nothing in the record precludes termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: There are grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights, and we do not find an extension of time to seek reunification is in the children’s best interests or that the parent-child bond weighs against termination here.  Finding no merit in the father’s contentions, we affirm the termination of his parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal following their consent to termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parents’ rights to their two children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, D.F., born in 2012, and R.W., born in 2017.  The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (l) (2018).  On appeal, the mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination and argues a permissive factor weighs against terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: As the children could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing and no permissive factor weighs against it, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to D.F. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f) and to R.W. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father has not seen the child since February 2017, has unresolved substance-abuse issues, and is incarcerated, terminating his parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  The evidence shows the Iowa Department of Human Services did not fail to consider the child’s placement with the paternal grandmother.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, E.G., who was born in 2006.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2018).  The mother maintains the statutory grounds for termination have not been met as the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her child and the close bond she shares with E.G. precludes termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s reasonable-efforts argument has not been preserved for our review, and no permissive factor weighs against the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS:  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2018) because the juvenile court never found the child was physically or sexually abused or neglected.  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the father failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child.  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) because it failed to show a nexus between the father’s conduct and an appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm.