September 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (7 pages)

            3E, also known as Electrical & Engineering Company, and Travelers Indemnity Company appeal the district court’s decision denying their motion to dismiss Steven Bell Jr.’s petition for judicial review on the ground Bell failed to timely serve notice of the petition.  OPINION HOLDS:  We determine the district court erred by denying the motion to dismiss, as Bell did not substantially comply with the requirements for service of notice found in Iowa Code section 17A.19(2) (2018).  We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for an order dismissing the petition for judicial review.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals from the denial of his petition for modification of a dissolution-of-marriage decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of the father’s modification petition. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her minor children.  OPINION HOLDS: The State has proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is in the children’s best interests, and no statutory exception exists to prevent termination.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: The father does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) (2018), which does not require reasonable efforts toward reunification.  Regardless, the father failed to demand additional efforts and waived the issue on appeal.  We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  She claims the child could have been returned to her care at the time of the hearing and, alternatively, requests an additional six months to reunite with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Amy Zacharias, 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 to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that returning the children to the mother’s care would expose them to the type of harm that would lead to a child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication, and we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2018).  II. The State made reasonable efforts to return the children to the mother’s care.  III. Termination is in the children’s best interests.  IV. We decline to apply one of the exceptions to the termination statute to avoid termination and affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer Minot, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was appropriate under Iowa law and was in the children’s best interests.  We affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Although I agree the evidence supports termination, I write separately to emphasize the role courts play in overseeing the State’s reasonable efforts to reunify families.  Scholars have persuasively argued such efforts require culturally competent services.  African-American children are disproportionately overrepresented in child welfare and foster care systems, and courts can take greater consideration of ethnic and cultural contacts in considering the child’s best interests.  But I agree the father’s appeal issues do not put that question squarely before us. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, J.K.  OPINION HOLDS: Inasmuch as grounds for termination exist and permanency is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Clear and convincing evidence establishes the elements for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) because the mother’s substance use remained a concern at the time of the termination hearing.  II. Because the mother cannot provide the child with the permanency or care the child needs, termination is in the child’s best interests.  III. We decline to delay termination because the evidence does not indicate the need for removal will no longer exist at the end of that six-month period. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s 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 Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  Dissent by Potterfield, P.J.  (11 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children, A.R. and S.R.  The father does not contest the statutory grounds for termination have been met.  He maintains termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of the children and claims the juvenile court should have placed the children in a guardianship with their maternal grandmother in lieu of terminating his parental rights because of the closeness of the bond he shares with the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father has not demonstrated an ability to stay sober and create a safe environment for his children and will be imprisoned for at least three more years, and the children are thriving in their maternal grandmother’s care, we affirm the termination.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Based on the holdings of recent cases with similar facts, I would reverse the termination of the father's parental rights.