January 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Joseph Lewis appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner, contending the commissioner’s fact findings are not supported by substantial evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The record as a whole contained substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s fact findings and determination that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of Lewis’ employment.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (5 pages)

            James Wehr appeals his conviction of driving while barred as a habitual offender.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.  He also seems to argue his conviction is invalid because his initial barment was rendered improper.  He finally argues counsel rendered ineffective assistance in various respects.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Wehr’s conviction but preserve his claim counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Paul R. Huscher, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s custody ruling in a dissolution action arguing shared physical care was not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: After considering the best-interests framework and the facts of this case, we conclude shared physical care is not in the children’s best interests.  We remand for the entry of an order granting the mother physical care, granting the father liberal visitation, and recalculating the child support obligation.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees to either party.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.  Schumacher, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (5 pages)

            Appellants Juliann Nelson and Kristine Norelius appeal the denial of their application for declaratory relief on jurisdictional grounds.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the denial of the application for declaratory relief and remand the matter to the district court for a hearing on the application.  We deny the appellants’ request for appellate attorney fees.  Cost on appeal shall be equally assessed between the appellants and the conservatorship. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Angela L. Doyle, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

                Robert (“Bobby”) Meller appeals the district court custody order granting Meranda Hendrickson physical care of their minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that the case presents “a close question,” but we conclude the factors weigh in favor of Bobby having physical care. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two of his children.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination, contends termination is not in the children’s best interests, and claims the juvenile court was “unable to render a fair judgment due to the court’s bias and prejudice.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, contending (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination cited by the district court and (2) the department of human services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s determination and the department satisfied its reasonable efforts mandate, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (7 pages)

            Monique, mother of four children, I.J., L.J., Z.M., and T.M. and Antawun, father of I.J. and L.J., challenge the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights under Iowa Code § 231.116(1) (2019) and claim that the district court should have preserved the parent-child relationships because of their strong bonds with the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because neither parent contests termination under Iowa Code § 231.116(1)(f), we need not discuss this step.  Also, the record does not support both parents’ claims that their relationships were so close that termination would bring harm to the children.  In addition, because the record shows I.J. and L.J felt secure with their foster parents and that Monique’s inconsistency in visits had negative impacts on Z.M. and T.M, Section 232.116(3)(c) did not compel a different outcome. Finally, because Monique has had more than a year to address her substance-abuse disorder, it is unlikely that Monique could provide a stable home for these children at the end of a six-month extension.  We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the mother’s rights is warranted under paragraphs (f) and (h) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2019).  Termination of the father’s rights is warranted under paragraph (h).  We further find termination to be in the children’s best interests and find it inappropriate to preclude termination under the permissive standards in Iowa Code section 232.116(3).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the grounds for termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence, an extension is not warranted, and the State has provided reasonable efforts at reunification.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination is appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, O.W., born in 2018.  The mother maintains the statutory grounds for termination have not been met, termination is not in O.W.’s best interests, the court should have applied a permissive factor to save the parent-child relationship, and a six-month extension to work toward reunification is warranted.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.