October 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (2 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She requests that the statutory exception contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2020) be applied to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  Dissent by Schumacher, J.  (27 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She contends the State failed to offer clear and convincing evidence that the child, H.V., could not be returned to her care when it relied exclusively on electronic exhibits at trial without calling a single witness.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court improperly allowed the State to shift the burden of disproving the allegations to the mother, even though it permitted the mother to handle the witnesses she called as hostile.  Further, the rules of evidence governing the admission of evidence, including electronic documents, requires the proponent of the evidence to establish authenticity.  Here, the State cannot rely on the mother calling witnesses as providing authentication for the exhibits it proffered.  The witnesses did not testify as to authenticity, and the documents do not entirely reflect upon their authenticity; nor does the State argue they are self-authenticating.  The State made no effort when it cross-examined the witnesses to authenticate the documents through the mother’s witnesses.  The State also failed, when the hearing stretched to three dates over three months, to provide any updated reporting.  The record lacks clear and convincing evidence that H.V. could not be returned to the mother’s care on the day of the final hearing.  We reverse and remand the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because the juvenile court is instructed to admit all relevant and material evidence, the case managers were available for cross-examination, the juvenile court did not create a shifting of the burden of proof, and the mother suffered no prejudice, termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019) is supported by the record.  Additionally, termination was in the child's best interest, a guardianship was not the preferred permanency option under the facts of this case, a six-month extension was not warranted, and reasonable efforts were provided to the mother for a one-year period.  I would affirm termination of the mother's parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.  He contends: (1) the State failed to prove “the children could not be returned to [him] at the time of the termination of parental rights hearing or within a reasonable period of time thereafter”; (2) termination of his parental rights was not in the children’s best interests”; (3) he should have been afforded additional time to work toward reunification; and (4) the juvenile court  “abused its discretion in failing to grant the father’s motion to continue the termination hearing to a later date.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established the statutory grounds authorizing termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interest.  And the parents are not entitled to additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: After eighteen months of the mother failing to fully participate in offered services, we find the statutory grounds for termination satisfied, additional time to work towards reunification is not appropriate, and termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals and argues the juvenile court lacked authority to issue an order authorizing The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) to contact relatives of her daughter, X.C., for potential placement.  OPINIONS HOLDS: Because DHS has a statutory duty to contact relatives of children removed from their parents care, we find the juvenile court’s order proper.  Thus, we affirm and uphold the court’s order authorizing DHS to contact relatives for possible placement of X.C.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (14 pages)

            Nicole Finn appeals her convictions for one count of first-degree murder and three counts of first-degree kidnapping.  Finn (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilt on “each kidnapping charge”; (2) argues the district court improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of a term used in the marshalling instruction for kidnapping; (3) contends the district court abused its discretion in denying her motions for change of venue; (4) argues the district court abused its discretion in denying her motions to strike three jurors for cause; and (5) contends her trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to a jury instruction that “assume[d] the existence of facts disputed in the record.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James McGlynn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Chad Brewbaker appeals the denial of his second postconviction-relief application.  OPINION HOLDS: Brewbaker has failed to preserve error.  Even if we ignored the error preservation issue, we find his claim meritless.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Lashawn Thurman appeals the district court decision denying his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Thurman has not shown he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s performance and, therefore, has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Shaurome Taylor appeals his convictions for delivery of methamphetamine to a minor and sexual abuse in the third degree.  He argues the State engaged in purposeful racial discrimination when it used a peremptory strike to remove a juror and the weight of the evidence does not support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Taylor failed to prove the State engaged in purposeful racial discrimination in striking the juror and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A former employee sued a school district based on alleged wrongdoing by a former member of the school board.  The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, finding the school board member’s conduct was not within the scope of his duties as a school board member.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact.  So the court was correct in granting the school district’s motion for summary judgment.  We affirm.