April 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their one-year-old child, A.C.  The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under paragraphs (h) and (l) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2019) and also terminated the father’s rights under paragraph (e).  Here, the mother challenges one of the statutory grounds, argues additional time for reunification is warranted, and asks that a permissive factor be applied to save the parent-child relationship.  The father challenges two of the statutory grounds for termination, argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification, and asks that a permissive factor be applied to save the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: Having reviewed each of the issues preserved for our review, we affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  Special Concurrence by Doyle, J.  (15 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination is appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur with the majority’s disposition, but take this opportunity to comment on the conundrum faced by the court—has the supreme court supplanted the “adjudicatory harm” standard with a more relaxed “safely returned” standard in applying the fourth element of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)?  I believe the “safely returned” standard is merely judicial shorthand for the “adjudicatory harm” standard, and under either, the State must show that the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody without risk of adjudicatory harm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals from a district court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  We further agree with the denial of a six-month extension.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of the six-month extension requested by the mother pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2019). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights by the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals a combined order of dispositional review and confirming removal of the child from the mother’s care.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on our de novo review, the juvenile court’s order confirming removal of the child from the mother’s care and custody and placing the child in the sole care and custody of the father subject to the mother’s supervised visitation is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights.  The father waived his claim concerning reasonable efforts by not raising it before the juvenile court.  We conclude termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The Department of Human Services (DHS) is required to follow its statutory mandate to provide reunification services even when a parent is incarcerated.  Yet, it does not appear the DHS made any real effort to assess the feasibility of regular supervised visits between J.S. and his father when he was incarcerated in Wisconsin.  Lack of supervised visitation for the father during that time was a lost opportunity.  Resources are available to help parents’ attorneys navigate the issues facing incarcerated parents and the DHS workers must not operate on the assumption that incarcerated parents cannot be allowed visitation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interest.  She also argues the child’s placement with a relative and the closeness of her bond with the child should preclude termination or at least warrant a guardianship instead.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interest and the permissive exceptions of section 232.116(3) do not justify avoidance of termination in favor of a guardianship.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and argues she should have been granted an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (3 pages)

            The mother appeals the adjudication of her child as in need of assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review of the record, we agree with the juvenile court’s findings that clear and convincing evidence supports the adjudication of the child as in need of assistance and the continued adjudication and findings as stated in the February 7, 2020 dispositional order.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Susan Larson Christensen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (11 pages)

            Robert Reynolds appeals his conviction for second-degree murder, alleging that (1) the district court lacked authority to hear the case because the trial information was filed in West Pottawattamie County rather than East Pottawattamie County; (2) the district court violated his due process rights by disallowing an insanity defense; and (3) the district court’s finding of guilt was not supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            Lloyd Haywood appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: We find Haywood failed to carry his burden to prove either first or second trial counsel provided Haywood with ineffective assistance.  We preserve the claim of ineffective assistance toward PCR counsel for a possible future PCR claim.  Finally, we find Haywood failed to meet his burden to prove his actual-innocence claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (10 pages)          

            Kurtis Green appeals his conviction of domestic abuse assault by strangulation causing bodily injury and part of the sentence imposed.  He argues his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to adequately challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.  He also argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain evidence as in violation of his right to confrontation.  Finally, he argues the court erred in ordering him to pay court costs as restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Green’s conviction is supported by substantial evidence and counsel was therefore not ineffective in failing to properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.  We preserve for postconviction relief Green’s claim counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain evidence as in violation of his right to confrontation.  We thus affirm Green’s conviction.  However, we find the district court did not follow the proper procedures for the ordering of restitution.  We therefore vacate the challenged sentencing provision and remand the matter to the district court for completion of a restitution plan and a determination of Green’s reasonable ability to pay.