March 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  Dissent by Tabor, J.  (14 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the termination and the State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child.  We also find termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the juvenile court.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to affirm the order terminating the incarcerated father’s parental rights.  By not offering any visitation with D.S., despite the father’s persistent requests, I believe the State failed to satisfy the reasonable-efforts requirement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, termination is in the child’s best interests, and no exceptions apply.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Parents separately appeal juvenile court rulings in a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ rights and reject the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the juvenile court’s denial of the father’s requests for visitation while in prison and for additional time for reunification, we affirm the court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in her three children.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to preserve error on her claims that her consent to termination was not voluntary and intelligent and that an exception to termination applied.  We do not reach the merits of her claims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Susan Flaherty, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children: W.S., born in 2010; S.A.-Y., born in 2011; and E.A.-Y., born in 2015.  The mother maintains the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and the parent-child bond weighs against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

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

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: The father has waived argument concerning the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l) (2018).  Because we need only find termination proper on one ground cited by the district court, we may affirm on the termination on this ground.  The evidence shows termination, not long-term guardianship, is in the child’s best interests.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The State proved the grounds for termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) because clear and convincing evidence shows the children would be exposed to imminent likelihood of harm if returned to the mother’s care due to the mother’s failure to provide adequate supervision.  II. The State made reasonable efforts to remedy the need for the children’s removal.  III. Termination is in the children’s best interests.  IV. We decline to grant the mother additional time.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., McDonald, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  He argues the district court should have established a guardianship rather than terminating his parental rights because termination is not in the best interests of the child and a relative’s legal custody of the child precluded termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to a no-contact order that remains in effect until 2023 and the child’s need for permanency, we find termination is in the best interests of the child and there is nothing precluding termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to two children.  The father raises many issues with the termination.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we find none of the issues raised require reversal.  The State showed the father’s ongoing issues with substance abuse, mental health, and physical violence render him not safe as a custodial option for these children.  Moving promptly toward permanency promotes their welfare. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She argues the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) and termination is not in the best interests of the child.  OPINIONS HOLDS: Because the mother cannot sustain sobriety, we find grounds for termination exist and termination is in the best interests of the child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a one-year-old child.  He contests the statutory grounds for termination, the best-interests determination, and the court’s refusal to forego termination due to the parent-child bond.  He also asserts testimony from his substance abuse and mental health counselors violated confidentiality.  He requests an additional six months to work toward reunification and in the alternative asks us to find it was error not to place the child with his relatives and to find the department of human services provided reasonable visitation services.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established the father is not a safe custodian for the child.  He has unresolved substance abuse, mental health, and “anger issues” that preclude placing the child with him or delaying termination and permanency further.  His other claims lack merit or were not preserved for our review.  We affirm the termination of his parental rights.