2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, 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 to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We decline to apply any of the statutory permissive factors to avoid termination, and we deny the mother’s request for a six-month extension. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s separate orders terminating her parental rights to her three children K.A., K.M., and K.P.  She argues terminating her parental rights is not in the children’s best interest and she should have instead been given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: On de novo review, we conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children is in their best interest.  The mother has not addressed her substance-abuse issue.  She has also failed to address concerns over mental health, domestic violence, and housing.  There is no evidence termination would be detrimental to the children.  No evidence suggests the mother would be able to correct these issues if given another six months to work toward reunification.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals an order modifying the permanency goal in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude the modification of the permanency goal to placement with the father is in the best interests of the child and is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s request to submit written closing arguments.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (11 pages)

            Foster parents Brad and Bobbi argue the juvenile court should have granted their motion to remove the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) as I.P.’s guardian.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the juvenile court’s conclusion the DHS acted in I.P.’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Ann Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (15 pages)

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

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, A.G.  OPINION HOLDS: Grounds for termination have been shown by clear and convincing evidence.  An extension of time to seek reunification is not warranted, termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and no permissive factor weighs against termination.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children, raising claims: the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and the juvenile court should have declined to terminate her parental rights because the children were placed with a relative.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her children.

Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a child in need of assistance (CINA) permanency order.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request to dismiss or modify the permanency order placing the child in the care of the father.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (4 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his biological child, I.D., and his legal child, S.D.  The juvenile court terminated his parental rights to both children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (l) (2018).  The father does not contest the statutory grounds for termination; he argues termination is not in the children’s best interests because they share a bond with him.  He also asks for additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the father has not established that the children are so bonded to him that we should avoid termination of his parental rights.  Additionally, because we cannot say the father could safely parent the children if given an extension to work toward reunification, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (11 pages)

            The mother’s rights to these children were at issue at a termination-of-parental-rights hearing in November 2016.  After an extended delay, the juvenile court entered a written order in July 2018, terminating the mother’s parental rights.  The mother appealed, and in In re L.T., 924 521, 530 (Iowa 2019), our supreme court reversed the termination and remanded to the juvenile court.  The termination hearing on remand took place in April 2019, and the juvenile court again found the grounds to terminate the mother’s parental rights.  The mother appeals, arguing the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to make reasonable efforts until the July 2018 termination order was entered and termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests.  She also asks for additional time to work toward reunification with the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Although DHS discontinued services aimed at reunification before the written order was entered, the department did not fail to fulfill its reasonable-efforts obligation.  Additionally, we cannot further delay permanency for these children, as termination of the mother’s parental rights is in their best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Eric J. Nelson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to her child, R.S., under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019).  On appeal, the mother argues: (1) termination is not required because the child was in the father’s care, (2) termination is not in the child’s best interests, (3) the Iowa Department of Human Services failed to provide appropriate services, and (4) the exception in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) should apply since the father has legal custody.  OPINION HOLDS: Because filing a termination petition was permissible while R.S. remained in the father’s care and termination is in R.S.’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the State provided reasonable services for reunification and the child could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.  And even considering the father’s parole, additional time under section 232.104(2)(b) is unjustified.  We therefore affirm the order terminating the father’s parental rights.