2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, and the court properly denied her request for an extension of time.  The father did not raise any claims concerning the termination of his parental rights.  We conclude his parental rights were properly terminated.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.  He contends termination was not in the children’s best interests and the juvenile court should have invoked certain exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to the children.

            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 Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She contends (1) the State failed to prove the ground for termination cited by the court and (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child. 

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

            On appeal, the father and the intervenors contend the juvenile court erred in not finding the mother had relapsed and that the children should remain with the father.  OPINION HOLDS:  The juvenile court found both parents were capable of caring for their children at the time of the permanency-review hearing and determined the children could be returned to the mother, from whom the children had been removed.  We find no reason to disturb the juvenile court’s ruling and we therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child.  She argues: (1) termination is not in the child’s best interests, (2) the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification, and (3) she should have been given additional time for reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination is in the child’s best interests, the mother failed to preserve error on her reasonable-efforts challenge, and additional time is unwarranted.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.