November 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (3 pages)

            The mother challenges three of the statutory grounds for termination—paragraphs (d), (h), and (l) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s failure to challenge termination under paragraph (e) waives any error as it relates to that ground for termination, and we affirm on that ground without further analysis.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON FATHER’S APPEAL; REVERSED ON MOTHER’S APPEAL.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his three children and reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (11 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to twelve-year-old A.D. and ten-year-old A.G. pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020).  Both the mother and the children challenge the termination on appeal.  The children and the mother argue the children could have been returned to the mother’s care at the final day of the termination hearing and the termination petition should have been dismissed.  In the alternative, the children and mother argue that a guardianship should have been established in lieu of terminating the mother’s rights because termination is not in the children’s best interests and permissive factors weigh against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the children could not be returned to the mother’s care at the final day of the termination hearing, so the statutory ground for termination was met.  We take the children’s steadfast desire to have their mother remain in their life, as well as the circumstances involving their older siblings, into consideration regarding the mother’s and the children’s request for a guardianship in lieu of termination.  But establishing a guardianship would leave the children vulnerable to the uncertainty they have already experienced for too long; termination is in their best interests.  We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her infant daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, as the mother may not challenge the termination of her parental rights by raising arguments pertaining to the other parent’s position.  We do not address the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims due to the lack of developed argument.  Lastly, we find termination of the mother’s parental rights to be in B.G.’s best interest.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination with respect to both parents.  And termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to C.B., claiming his consent to termination was not given voluntarily and intelligently, and the district court erred in allowing the State to orally amend the termination petition to reflect consent.  He argues termination was not in the best interest of C.B., asks for more time to work toward reunification, and contests the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The father consented to termination voluntarily and intelligently, and the court properly granted the State’s motion to amend its petition to reflect his consent.  The father failed to preserve error on his other claims.  Thus, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            The father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find a statutory ground for terminating the father’s parental rights, termination is in the children’s best interest, and an additional six months will not alleviate the need for the children’s removal from the father’s care.  As a result, we affirm the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a permanency order entered in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The juvenile court acted within its discretion when it refused to admit the mother’s demonstrative exhibits because they fail to meet the requirements of Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.1006.  II. Error is not preserved on the mother’s claim that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family.  III. Based on the record before us, we are unable to find that the need for the children’s removal will be eliminated if we grant the mother more time. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights, contending there is not clear and convincing evidence to support termination and, in any event, termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no reason to disturb the court’s findings as they are supported by clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be returned to the father’s custody at present.  After two years of juvenile court proceedings, these children deserve permanency.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (10 pages)

            The mother of three children and the father of the middle child separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (14 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding them damages on their negligence action against the defendant, raising several claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the instructions and verdict forms failed to explain the import of a dismissed third-party defendant’s inclusion, we conclude they were misleading and the plaintiffs were prejudiced.  We reverse and remand for new trial.  In light of our reversal and remand for retrial on the allocation-of-fault question, we find it unnecessary to address the remaining issues. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Zachary Koehn was convicted of murder in the first degree and child endangerment resulting in death.  Both convictions involve his approximately four-month-old son.  On appeal, Koehn challenges those convictions, asserting (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the jury should not have been instructed it could infer malice from the commission of child endangerment resulting in serious injury; (3) his first-degree murder conviction should have merged into the child-endangerment conviction, leaving the “B” felony; and (4) the court abused its discretion in admitting some of the State’s evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered Koehn’s claims that were preserved and sufficiently formulated to enable review, we affirm his convictions for murder in the first degree and child endangerment resulting in death.  We preserve any claims of ineffective assistance for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.