Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-2065
View Summary for Case No. 19-2065
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J. Opinion by Scott, S.J. (8 pages)
A father appeals the adjudication of his two children as children in need of assistance (CINA). He also challenges the denial of his request for visitation. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the CINA adjudications and the court’s denial of the father’s initial motion for visitation. We find no error in the court’s decision to reconsider the issue of visitation at a subsequent review hearing.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-2066
View Summary for Case No. 19-2066
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (4 pages)
The father of R.C. appeals the termination of his parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Because the father has had little to no relationship with R.C. and has been incarcerated most of R.C.’s life, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-2109
View Summary for Case No. 19-2109
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON MOTHER’S APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON FATHER’S APPEAL. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (10 pages)
The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children, W.E. and D.J. The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2019). The father argues his rights were violated because he was not allowed to participate in most of the termination hearing. Additionally, he claims the juvenile court erred in refusing to admit one of his proposed exhibits, challenges the statutory grounds for termination, and argues termination is not in the children’s best interests. The mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and the juvenile court’s refusal to apply a permissive factor to save the parent-child relationship. Additionally, she argues a six-month extension to achieve reunification is warranted. OPINION HOLDS: The father’s due process rights were violated when he was not allowed to fully participate in the termination proceedings. We reverse the termination of the father’s parental rights and remand the case to the juvenile court for additional expedited proceedings in accordance with this opinion. But we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights, as statutory grounds for termination were met, termination is in the children’s best interests, no permissive factor weighs against termination, and additional time for reunification is not warranted here.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-2139
View Summary for Case No. 19-2139
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (9 pages)
The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to J.G. While only the mother asserts the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, both parents assert termination is not in the child’s best interests and the Iowa Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts for reunification. The father also requested additional time for reunification. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parental rights of both parents.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0036
View Summary for Case No. 20-0036
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Mark Fowler, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Gamble, S.J. Opinion by Gamble, S.J. (8 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: The children could not be returned to the father’s care, satisfying the statutory grounds for termination. Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the bond between the father and children is not strong enough to preclude termination.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0056
View Summary for Case No. 20-0056
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J. Nelson, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Blane, S.J. Opinion by Blane, S.J. (7 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a one-year-old child. OPINION HOLDS: The State showed by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for termination where the parent fails to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child. We further determine it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights and move toward a permanent home. Finally, the father waived any argument the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite him with the child. We affirm the termination.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0083
View Summary for Case No. 20-0083
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (7 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child, arguing the State failed to prove grounds for termination and termination was not in the child’s best interest. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019) and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the juvenile court termination order.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0087
View Summary for Case No. 20-0087
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (4 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; termination was not in the children’s best interests; and the district court should have placed the children in a guardianship in lieu of terminating her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0140
View Summary for Case No. 20-0140
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by May, J. (4 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 children’s best interests.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0146
View Summary for Case No. 20-0146
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (4 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, contending: (1) the State failed to prove the ground for termination cited by the district court; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; (3) the district court should not have terminated her parental rights given the bond she shared with the child; and (4) she should have been afforded additional time to work toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0153
View Summary for Case No. 20-0153
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (6 pages)
A mother and a father separately appeal from an order terminating their parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned safely to either parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing. Because the continued offer and receipt of services for an additional six months will not remedy the concerns that brought the child to the court’s attention, an extension of time is unwarranted. Considering the child’s safety and need for a permanent home, termination is in the child’s best interests.
Filed Apr 01, 2020
View Opinion No. 20-0168
View Summary for Case No. 20-0168
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (8 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a two-year-old child. They argue the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and that termination is detrimental to their child due to the parent-child bond. OPINION HOLDS: The State showed by clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be returned to the home of either parent at the present time, proving the statutory ground for termination. And the parent-child bond is not strong enough to result in disadvantage to the child following termination. We affirm the termination as to both appeals.