April 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate 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 a child, born in 2015.  He contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the district court should have invoked certain exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The evidence shows termination is in the children’s best interests.  The father has failed to show any of the provisions of section 232.116(3) (2019) apply.  Because there is no basis for finding the need for removal will be eliminated if the mother and father are granted additional time, we decline to delay termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the children could not be returned to the mother’s care without a risk of adjudicatory harm at the time of the termination-of-parental-rights hearing.  Additionally, termination of the parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests, additional time under section 232.104(2)(b) (2019) is unjustified, and no permissive factor under section 232.116(3) overweighs the children’s need for permanency.  Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2017, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l) (2019).  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination and argues the child’s best interests require the establishment of a guardianship in relatives.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (8 pages)

            The putative father appeals the termination of his parental rights to D.F., born in 2014.  The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (e) (2019).  Here, the father argues his rights should not be terminated because the Iowa Department of Human Services did not complete the court-ordered paternity testing on the father and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination undersection 232.116(1)(b) does not include a reasonable-efforts requirement, and the record shows the father deserted D.F.  Because termination is appropriate under section 232.116(1)(b) and is in D.F.’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  The father does not dispute the statutory basis for termination of his rights.  We find termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We also conclude it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant the father an additional six months to work on reunification.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  She contends the State did not offer clear and convincing evidence of the statutory ground for termination.  She also argues the court should have refrained from terminating her rights because she has a strong bond with the children and relatives are caring for them.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find little record support for the mother’s arguments, we affirm the termination of parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and May, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He does not dispute the grounds for termination exist, but argues the juvenile court erred in not transferring the children to the guardianship of the paternal grandmother.  OPINION HOLDS: We adopt the juvenile court’s finding that a guardianship with the grandmother is not in the children’s best interests.  We find no reason to disturb the court’s ruling terminating the father’s parental rights and therefore affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals adjudicatory and dispositional orders involving her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the adjudication of the child under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (g), and (n) (2019).  We reverse the adjudication of the child under section 232.2(6)(b).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (7 pages)

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

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her child as in need of assistance and the subsequent dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            Daniel Claybon appeals the dismissal of his fifth postconviction-relief (PCR) application.  He asks this court to apply the supreme court’s holding in State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 400–04 (Iowa 2014), to adult offenders.  OPINION HOLDS: Our caselaw has continuously rejected claims that the juvenile sentencing scheme should be extended to adult offenders.  We affirm the PCR court’s dismissal of Claybon’s application.