2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Both parents appeal the termination of their parental rights, contending it is the child’s best interests to allow them a third extension of time to seek reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist and yet another extension is not in the child’s best interests, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights were established under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018) and termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We find no reason to disturb the juvenile court’s finding that none of the exceptions to termination found in section 232.116(3) apply here, and we agree the DHS provided reasonable services for reunification.  We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing the State did not present clear and convincing proof the child could not safely be returned to his care, the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court the State demonstrated continuing safety concerns should the child be placed with the father and the closeness of the relationship does not weigh against termination, and because the father did not preserve a reasonable-efforts argument, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.  We affirm the termination of her parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  Dissent by McDonald, J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State proved the statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is in the best interests of the child, and the father failed to meet his burden to prove a statutory exception to termination.  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.  DISSENT ASSERTS:  I respectfully dissent.  As the juvenile court noted in the termination order, “This case is a close call.”  I agree.  But the State is tasked with proving its case by clear and convincing evidence.  Clear and convincing evidence “is the highest evidentiary burden in civil cases.  It means there must be no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a particular conclusion drawn from the evidence.”  In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 679 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).  “This significant burden is imposed on the State to minimize the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the parent’s fundamental liberty interest in raising his child.”  Id.  In my view, when the evidence is in equipoise, as it is here, the tie goes to the parent.  I would reverse the order terminating parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Grounds for termination of parental rights exist and the child’s need for stability and security will be best achieved by terminating the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, born in 2014.  The mother argues termination of her rights is not in the child’s best interests and the statutory exception to termination contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (2018) should be applied or a guardianship should be established with a maternal great-aunt.  The father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court, echoes the mother’s claims concerning the statutory exception to termination and establishment of a guardianship, and argues he should have been granted an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals a permanency order placing his two children in a guardianship, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a lack of clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the ruling.  Additionally, he alleges the district court erred by prematurely entering its dispositional order and also by denying his motion to enlarge and amend its findings and conclusions.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court appropriately transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the relative.  The father failed to appeal the dispositional order and thereby waived any claim of error.  To the extent the father’s motion to enlarge addressed issues not raised on appeal, those issues have also been waived.  As to the ineffective-assistance claim, the father cannot prove prejudice.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to four children.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother argues the court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights.  She has no standing to assert the father’s rights.  The father argues that termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (2018) is not proper here.  We disagree.  The father’s rights to another child in the same household were terminated in 2015, these children have been adjudicated children in need of assistance, the father has been offered numerous services for more than three years, and he continues to be unable or unwilling to respond to those services that were provided to correct substance-abuse issues and unstable employment and housing.  A further extension of time is not warranted. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s removal of her children and their adjudication as children in need of assistance (CINA).  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction to remove the children, who were originally from Texas, under the temporary emergency jurisdiction provision of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Iowa Code section 598B.204 (2018), and we affirm the removal of the children.  On the issue of the CINA adjudication and dispositional orders, we reverse the juvenile court and remand for a determination of whether Texas has declined jurisdiction and whether Iowa has become the children’s home state.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Linnea M. N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (16 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his five children.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we conclude termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests and none of the circumstances set forth in section 232.116(3) exist to make that section applicable.  We also believe an order under section 232.100 was not an option under the facts of this case, but in any event, find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to proceed with termination of the father’s parental rights instead of delaying permanency.  We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (4 pages)

            The father of I.S., born 2009, appeals the juvenile court’s permanency order.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court I.S. could not be placed with the father, and it is in her best interest to maintain her in the care of her great-aunt.  We find no basis to amend the permanency order, which left visitation at the discretion of the Iowa Department of Human Services while directing the opening of a guardianship proceeding.