2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Tod J. Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            Kelly Torres appeals a district court order modifying a custody decree concerning her child.  She argues the child’s father did not meet his burden to show a substantial change in circumstances or that he has a superior ability to minister to the child’s needs.  The father requests an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s modification ruling.  We deny the father’s request for appellate attorney fees.  Costs on appeal are assessed to Kelly. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Shawn Showers, Judge.  VACATED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Paul Anthony Asberry appeals from the award of a final protective order against him, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported its issuance and (2) he did not receive proper notice of a change in the scheduled hearing date.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the notice issue dispositive.  In the absence of personal service, we vacate the final order of protection and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            D.M. challenges the trial court’s finding of serious mental impairment, claiming there is insufficient evidence that he poses a risk to his own or others’ safety.  OPINION HOLDS: In light of D.M.’s recent suicidal ideations, refusal to follow-through with mental-health treatment, a telephoned threat to a former employer, and the recent purchase of AR15 rifle, we find clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s finding that D.M. poses a risk to himself or others. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Richard Alan Kessler appeals his removal as co-executor of his late father’s estate, claiming the district court abused its discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the removal petition.  We affirm Kessler’s removal as co-executor.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nancy A. Baumgartner, Judge.  SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (3 pages)

            Following a guilty plea, Damarcus Northern appeals his sentence, arguing the district court erroneously ordered him “to pay court costs while finding he had no ability to [pay] fines or pay attorney fees based upon his imminent incarceration.”  OPINION HOLDS: Applying State v. Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144, 160–62 (Iowa 2019), we vacate the sentencing court’s assessment of court costs against Northern pending the completion of a final restitution order and a subsequent determination of Northern’s reasonable ability to pay.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the district court’s custody, visitation, and support order.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that the child’s best interests are served by placement of the child in the mother’s physical care with the visitation schedule set by the district court.  We also conclude the court’s allocation of the tax exemption to the mother is equitable.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s custody order in all respects.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 pages)

            Cory Bumann appeals the district court’s modification of the decree dissolving his marriage to Alexis Anderson, formerly Alexis Bumann.  He argues the court erred in not awarding him physical care of the parties’ minor child and in placing too much emphasis on the value of the child’s sibling relationship with Alexis’s other daughter.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  We deny each party’s request for appellate attorney fees.  Costs on appeal are assessed to Cory. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda L. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals from an order modifying the physical care provisions of a custody order.  She argues physical care should be place with her because she can provide the child with superior care.  She also claims the district court abused its discretion by denying her request for attorney fees and requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother’s move to a different part of the state amounted to a material and substantial change in circumstance and father can provide the child with superior care, we conclude the district court properly modified the physical care arrangement by awarding the father physical care of the child.  The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees, and we decline to award either party appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (3 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (l) (2018).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Ann Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children; she contends the district court erred in finding the statutory grounds for termination were met and termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in finding the statutory grounds for termination were met by clear and convincing evidence.  Considering the children’s safety and need for permanency in the long- and short-term, their best interests are furthered by termination of her parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, asking us to place the children in a guardianship with a relative and apply one of the statutory exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the evidence, we agree termination is in the children’s best interests and decline to apply the exception to termination provided in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (2018). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and contends termination is not in the child’s best interests.  The father additionally challenges the denial of his motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend the juvenile court’s findings.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.