2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (5 pages)

            Telly Nix appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, which we construe as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.  The proper form of review is by a petition for writ of certiorari.  We therefore treat Nix’s notice of appeal and appellate briefs as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the writ, and proceed to the merits of his claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court correctly applied the law in this case.  We therefore annul the writ.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Taylor County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother of four children and the father of the youngest three children separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, both challenging the efforts at reunification by the department of human services.  Additionally, the mother asserts insufficient evidence supported termination, and the father claims termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that the children could not be returned to the mother’s custody and affirm the termination of her parental rights.  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his three children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            DeAngelo Brooks appeals claiming the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing its sentence.  OPINION HOLDS:  Although Brooks would have preferred a different sentence, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion.  The court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence imposed.  Substantial evidence supports the sentence, and the court properly applied the law in imposing it.        

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            Chad Sposeto appeals the district court order denying his petition to modify provisions of a custody decree.  He also challenges the award of attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            William McClellan and Racquel McClellan appeal the district court order entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants on their claim for damages arising from a collision with a police vehicle.  OPINION HOLDS: While we agree that the undisputed facts show the police officer was responding to an emergency at the time of the collision, the district court erred in applying the recklessness standard in determining the defendants are immune from liability.  The officer’s vehicle’s lights and siren were off at the time of the collision, therefore, by the plain language of Iowa Code section 321.231(4) (2016), he was not privileged to disobey applicable traffic laws.  He is therefore held to a standard of negligence, as any other driver on the road.  The district court erred in holding otherwise.  Summary judgment on the question of Officer Ramirez’s negligence is premature, particularly in view of the undeveloped record presented.  Therefore, we reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remand to the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  They challenge the findings of the juvenile court that grounds for termination exist, termination is in the children’s best interests, and no permissive reason warrants the preservation of parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Amy L. Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, E.W., born in 2017.  The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2018).  The father only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because E.W. could not be returned to the father’s care at the time of the termination hearing, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s parental rights pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Amy L. Zacharias, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because returning the children to the mother’s care would expose them to adjudicatory harm, the evidence supports terminating the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018).  Termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four of her seven children, born in 2006, 2012, 2014, and 2017.  She contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) the district court should have granted her additional time to work towards reunification; (3) termination is not in the children’s best interests; and (4) the district court should have placed the oldest child in a guardianship with the child’s maternal grandmother.  The oldest child also appeals the termination decision.  She argues the court should not have terminated her mother’s parental rights and should have placed her in a guardianship with her maternal grandmother.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to four of her children.  We conclude a guardianship for the oldest child with her maternal grandmother was not warranted.

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

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018).  The mother has failed to preserve error on her claim that the Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to return the child to her care.  The best interests of the child require termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s decision to waive the department of human services’ obligation to make reasonable efforts towards reunification.  The father also argues that the court should not have declined his request to bifurcate the roles of the children’s attorney and guardian ad litem.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the department’s obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts should not have been waived.  We reverse the portion of the dispositional order granting the children’s waiver motion and remand for reinstatement of reasonable reunification services and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We find it unnecessary to also reverse the juvenile court’s denial of the father’s request for bifurcation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Per Curiam.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her two children.  OPINION HOLDS: The record shows the mother did nothing to address her mental health issues during the pendency of the case.  Consequently, we agree with the juvenile court that the children could not have been returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.  Because the State established by clear and convincing evidence the ground for termination in paragraph (f) of section 232.116(1) (2018), we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.