2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three minor children, arguing that an exception under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2019) applies to prevent termination based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the exception to termination applies.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019) where clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing because of her ongoing substance use.  Because the mother’s substance use prevents her from providing the child a safe and permanent home, termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  Dissent by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            The father of G.O. appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father was notified in person and in writing of the date and time of the hearing and appeared with counsel, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to continue the hearing.  The State proved the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.  We agree with the juvenile court that termination of the father’s parental rights is in G.O.’s best interests, and we find no impediments to termination.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent.  I am not convinced the father’s whereabouts were unknown or could not be ascertained by a reasonably diligent search.  And the father’s awareness of the hearing date did not obviate the need to serve him with notice of the termination proceeding at least seven days before the termination hearing.  I would reverse and remand.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, and no permissive factor persuades us termination should not occur, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (3 pages)

            The mother appeals the dispositional order continuing the removal of her three children.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court and affirm without further opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mark R. Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three daughters, D.B., born in 2010, and B.B. and A.B., both born in 2013.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court found, and we concur, that the grounds for termination were proven.  We further find the record does not support that an extension of time for reunification efforts is warranted and termination is in the best interest of the children.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children, contending that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination, termination was not in the children’s best interests, and the district court should have afforded her six additional months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  She contends the court should have granted her request for a continuance, the State did not prove the statutory grounds, termination would be detrimental due to the parent-child bond, and the court should have given her more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: On our independent review, we find no basis for reversal.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother a continuance.  The State proved the statutory grounds for termination as to each child, and the mother did not show termination would be detrimental.  Finally, given the mother’s long-standing unresolved substance abuse and instability, the record reveals no reason to conclude the problems will be resolved in six months.  We affirm. 

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child, born in 2015.  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the parent child bond, requests the statutory exception to termination contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) be applied and a guardianship be established in the maternal grandmother in lieu of termination, and claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by May, J. (3 pages)

            Jacob Boothby appeals from his convictions of assault with a dangerous weapon and third-degree criminal mischief.  He raises two ineffective-assistance claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the record insufficient to address either claim.  So we preserve the claims and affirm Boothby’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (21 pages)

            James Walden Jr. appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder challenging an evidentiary ruling, a jury instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and ineffectiveness of trial counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not err in crafting an appropriate remedy when excluded evidence of sexual assault entered the record.  The court’s instruction was supported by the evidence, and the district court did not err in delivering it.  There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and it was not against the weight of the evidence.  Finally, we preserve the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for a possible postconviction-relief proceeding.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  In this appeal, he claims his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue that his criminal trial attorney was ineffective for failing to discover and object to the district court relying in part upon his previous conviction for theft in the fifth degree when unrepresented by counsel for denying his request for a deferred judgment on a subsequent charge of theft in the second degree.  OPINION HOLDS: Because this particular issue was not raised before the district court in this PCR proceeding and not ruled upon, we find it is not properly before us in this appeal, and it must be raised in a newly filed PCR application.