2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (12 pages)

            Puryear Law P.C. and Eric Puryear appeal the district court’s dismissal of a defamation action against Dirk Fishback and Jessica Harbaugh, contending the district court erred in granting a motion for directed verdict.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            Vernon and Mary Hilkemann appeal a district court ruling relating to zoning decisions by the City of Carter Lake City Council, Planning Board, and Board of Adjustment.  The Hilkemanns contest the district court’s finding the relation-back doctrine did not apply and the court’s authority to remand annulled variances to the board of adjustment for further proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the relation-back doctrine does not apply here and the court has the authority to order a remand for further proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J. Finn, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (9 pages)

            Atiba Spellman appeals the order dismissing his action for postconviction relief (PCR) as a discovery sanction.  OPINION HOLDS:  The reasoning supporting dismissal of Spellman’s PCR action is flawed.  First, the PCR court overlooked that Spellman amended his PCR application to provide the desired specificity for his PCR claims before the hearing on discovery sanctions.  Second, we disagree that Spellman’s failure to provide discovery answers impeded the State’s ability to move for summary judgment.  Third, Spellman did provide interrogatory answers within the deadline set forth in the court’s order compelling him to answer, and it is more likely that his failure to provide more specific answers or documents results from inability rather than willful refusal.  Finally, the circumstances here are less egregious than in cases where the courts upheld dismissal as a discovery sanction.  Given these circumstances, we find the PCR court abused its discretion in dismissing Spellman’s PCR application as a discovery sanction.  For these reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

             Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, DeDra L. Schroeder, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Andrew Martin appeals a district court order adjudicating him a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody of the department of human services for control.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the order adjudicating Martin a sexually violent offender and ordering his civil commitment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (21 pages)

            Richard Ehler appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately research the viability of his speedy-trial claim.  OPINION HOLDS: Plea counsel breached a duty by failing to understand the applicable speedy-trial standard.  And because counsel’s failure influenced Ehler’s decision to plead guilty, it resulted in prejudice to Ehler.  We remand the case to the district court with instructions to grant Ehler’s PCR application, vacate the guilty plea, and dismiss the trial information.