2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (9 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, R.A., contending the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to enter the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) and termination orders.  OPIINION HOLDS: Applying the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act found in Iowa Code chapter 598B (2019), the juvenile court had jurisdiction to enter the CINA and termination orders.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the father waived his claim the State did not engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with the child, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination, the juvenile court properly denied the father’s request for additional time, and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  REVERSED ON BOTH APPEALS AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  Dissent by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Mother of two of the children and father of one appeal the termination of their parental rights and contend that the juvenile court should have granted their requests for a six-month extension under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2019) and not ordered termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the parents were making positive efforts to change behavior which was the basis for removal, the juvenile court should have granted the extension.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would affirm the juvenile court’s denial of six additional months to work toward reunification and the termination of parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals a dispositional-review order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  The father argues the court erred in finding the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable efforts toward reunification and in failing to change the child’s placement.  OPINION HOLDS: Our de novo review of the record reveals the father’s failure to timely comply with substance-abuse and psychological evaluations justifies the district court’s refusal to order more in-home visitation.  Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s finding DHS made reasonable efforts.  Furthermore, we agree with the juvenile court’s denial of the motion for change of placement, favoring the child’s placement in an appropriate long-term placement until the child can be returned to a parental home.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J. Nelson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient evidence supports the termination, additional time is unwarranted, and termination is in the best interests of the child.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two minor children.  The mother argues the State failed to prove she was not able to resume custody of the children at the time of the termination hearing and termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the mother could not resume custody of the children at the time of the termination hearing by clear and convincing evidence and 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 Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            Both parents appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant the parents an extension of time to work on reunification, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of their parental rights, termination is in the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied.  The child has extensive medical needs which the parents are not able to meet.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The statutory grounds authorizing termination were met because the child could not be returned to either parent without a risk of harm.  Termination of both parents’ rights is in the child’s best interests.  The father’s bond with the child is not so strong to preclude termination.  Neither parent is entitled to additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, contending (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            Parents separately appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

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

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her daughter after she found her four-year-old dead due to an overdose of Benadryl.  She contests the statutory grounds under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2019), the best-interests determination under section 232.116(2), and the Court’s decision to not apply the permissive factor in section 232.116(3)(c).  She also claims the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with L.J.  OPINION HOLDS: DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification consistent with L.J.’s best interests.  Also, the mother has unresolved trauma and mental-health challenges that prevent reunification with L.J.  Next, we find troubling the mother’s pattern of neglectful parenting.  Finally, the record does not show their relationship remained so close that L.J. will be disadvantaged by the termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            Euric Fountain appeals the summary disposition of his seventh application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the district court’s finding that information received by Fountain more than two decades ago does not amount to newly discovered evidence sufficient to toll the statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2017).  We find the court erred in its analysis concerning other purported newly discovered evidence, and we remand to the district court on that ground.