June 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018).  The mother has failed to preserve error on her claim that the Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to return the child to her care.  The best interests of the child require termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s decision to waive the department of human services’ obligation to make reasonable efforts towards reunification.  The father also argues that the court should not have declined his request to bifurcate the roles of the children’s attorney and guardian ad litem.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the department’s obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts should not have been waived.  We reverse the portion of the dispositional order granting the children’s waiver motion and remand for reinstatement of reasonable reunification services and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We find it unnecessary to also reverse the juvenile court’s denial of the father’s request for bifurcation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Per Curiam.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her two children.  OPINION HOLDS: The record shows the mother did nothing to address her mental health issues during the pendency of the case.  Consequently, we agree with the juvenile court that the children could not have been returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.  Because the State established by clear and convincing evidence the ground for termination in paragraph (f) of section 232.116(1) (2018), we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (4 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children.  She argues the State failed to prove any of the grounds for termination exist by clear and convincing evidence and termination is not in the best interests of the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on the record and the mother’s admission that the children could not have been returned to her at the time of the termination hearing, we conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination exist.  In addition, we find termination is in the best interests of the children.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father separately challenge the termination of their parental rights to their child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, an extension of time would not be in the child’s best interests, an exception to termination should not be applied, and the State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the mother and the child.  We also find there is substantial evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, C.M., arguing the court should have permitted him an additional six months to work toward reunification, and the closeness of the parent-child relationship outweighs termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find no grounds for a delay in C.M.’s permanency, and because we do not believe the bond between the father and C.M. overrides the need for termination, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children, contending there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination, termination is not in the children’s best interests, the court erred in not applying one of the factors weighing against termination, and the State failed to make reasonable visitation efforts.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm because grounds for termination exist, termination and permanency for the children is in their best interests, and guardianship is not preferred to termination of the mother’s parental rights.  The department of human services made reasonable efforts to accommodate the mother’s move.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (3 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to each child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), and (l) (2018).  OPINION HOLDS: The mother does not challenge whether clear and convincing evidence supports paragraph (b), so we affirm on this ground.  Based on the record at the time of the termination trial, termination of the mother’s parental rights is in these children’s best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother, Patricia, and father, Michael, separately appeal the termination of parental rights to their daughter, S.G.  Patricia challenges the statutory basis for termination, claims termination is not in S.G.’s best interests, and asserts termination will be detrimental to S.G. because of their close bond.  Michael also contests the statutory ground for termination and, alternatively, seeks additional time to obtain a psychosexual evaluation and work on his mental-health issues.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion the State proved termination of both Patricia and Michael’s parental rights is warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019).  And we do not believe termination of Patricia’s rights is counter to S.G.’s best interests, nor do we believe Patricia’s close bond with S.G. weighs against termination.  Finally, we do not think Michael is entitled to a six-month delay of S.G.’s placement.  Accordingly, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  He claims clear and convincing evidence shows termination would be detrimental to the children due to the closeness of the parent-child bonds.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.