September 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Amy Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2019).  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother waived her due process claim by not citing any authority in support of her argument.  We find the State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the child.  The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s requests to place the child in a guardianship and for an extension of time.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request to extend the case for an additional six months.  We also find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his nine-year-old son.  The juvenile court terminated the father’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2018).  The father challenges the statutory grounds for termination, maintains the juvenile court should have applied a permissive factor to avoid termination, and argues an extension of time to work toward reunification is in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: For all the reasons listed herein, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their respective children.  Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court and argue termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the closeness of the parent-child bonds.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to each parent, an extension is unwarranted, and termination is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, F.K. and F.K.  The juvenile court terminated her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (k) (2019).  The mother disputes aspects of each of the statutory grounds, and argues termination is not in the children’s best interest and she should have been given a six-month extension to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The State met its burden to terminate the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h).  Termination is in the children’s best interest.  A six-month extension is not warranted. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights.  An extension of time would not be in the children’s best interests.  The State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the children.  Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the mother failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child in the six months leading up to termination or make reasonable efforts to resume care for the child despite being given the opportunity to do so.  We therefore affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2019).  We find termination is in the child’s best interests for the same reasons, and we decline to grant the mother additional time to reunite with the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J. (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court that the State established by clear and convincing evidence the ground for termination set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  The record evidences that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s bests interests, and no facts in the record show a six-month delay would lead to safe reunification.  So we affirm the juvenile court’s ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights, contesting two of the three grounds the juvenile court found warranted termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother does not dispute the juvenile court’s ruling that termination was supported under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(l) (2019), and we affirm on that ground.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Gary and Ashley separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to two children.  Gary contends the State did not prove the grounds to terminate.  He also argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children by providing adequate visitation.  Ashley does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination.  Instead, she argues the State did not make reasonable efforts in considering her sister as a potential guardian and for the children’s placement.  She also argues the court was not acting in the children’s best interests in appointing Department of Human Services (DHS) as the custodian and guardian and severing her parental relationship despite her close relationship with the children.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interests.  As is guardianship with the DHS for the purpose of permanency through adoption.  We further find the DHS acted reasonably in the efforts it made to support the parents’ attempts to reunify with the children.  We affirm as to both appeals.