April 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

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

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence supports the termination and termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (10 pages)

            The mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  Both parents raise various arguments, including the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist, the district court should have granted a six-month extension, termination was not in the best interests of the child, and termination was precluded by permissive factors.  Alternatively, the parents claim the district court should have established a guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination exist, additional time would not extinguish the need for removal, termination is in the best interests of the child, and nothing in the record precludes termination.  Furthermore, we find the district court appropriately rejected a guardianship.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2018), arguing termination was not warranted because the child could have been returned to her care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we conclude the child could not be safely returned home at the time of the termination hearing, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Charles Borth, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, contending the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child, grounds for termination do not exist, and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we discern no reason to disagree with the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a one-year-old child.  OPINION HOLDS: The father’s sole contention is that it was not in the child’s best interests to terminate his parental rights.  The father’s lack of progress in addressing and controlling his anger leads us to conclude it is in the child’s best interests to terminate his parental rights and seek a permanent home for the child.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, born in April 2017.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2018).  The mother maintains the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and a permissive factor weighs against termination.  Alternatively, she requests a six-month extension to continue working toward reunification with her children.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because we find the juvenile court should have granted the mother’s request for a six-month extension to continue working toward reunification, we do not address any of the mother’s other claims.  We reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for implementation of a six-month extension. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  Also, the juvenile court properly determined the exception to termination based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship should not be applied.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Bower, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  The mother concedes the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been met but claims termination is not in the best interests of the children.  We conclude it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2018).  The children cannot be returned to the mother at the present time due to unresolved substance-abuse and domestic-violence issues and the mother’s inability to provide adequate supervision to ensure the children’s safety.  Termination of the mother’s rights is in the children’s best interests.     

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Ty Rogers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, and a father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three children.  They also contend the State did not timely file its response brief.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree the State did not timely file its response brief.  We further find the State proved the statutory grounds for termination, that termination was in the children’s best interests, and termination would not be so detrimental due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship that termination should be avoided.  We also find the State made reasonable efforts toward reunification.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  Dissent by Danilson, S.J.  (8 pages)

A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for terminating both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights because the child could not be returned safely to either parent’s care.  Termination is in the child’s best interests and none of the exceptions to the termination statute apply.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent.  I believe the evidence falls short of clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned home to the parents.  Initially, the parents struggled to attend to the child’s special needs but they had progressed to four overnights a week without any significant incident prior to the termination hearing.  I would reverse.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, asserts termination is not in the children’s best interest, and requests the application of a statutory exception to termination.  The father also argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.