June 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child, J.H.  She argues the juvenile court erred when it determined the father met his burden to prove she had abandoned J.H. under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3) (2019) and found termination was in J.H.’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the mother abandoned J.H. under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3), and termination was in J.H.’s best interest.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals from a district court order terminating his parental rights with respect to his daughter, K.W.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court’s determination that termination was in the child’s best interests, and we decline to apply the permissive exceptions to termination found in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2019).  Finally, we reject the father’s contention that his due process rights were violated by the district court’s scrivener’s error in the termination order.  The termination order is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She contests the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the child’s best interests, and requests an additional six months to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Special Concurrence by Ahlers, J.  (25 pages)

            The State and the paternal grandfather separately appeal the juvenile court’s order removing the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) as the child’s guardian.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude DHS acted unreasonably and not in the best interests of the child by failing to follow Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-200.4(3) in selecting an adoptive family and by overruling the adoption selection staffing’s choice of the foster parents as the adoptive family for this child.  We affirm the juvenile court order removing DHS as the child’s guardian.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Although I concur in the outcome, I write separately for two reasons.  First, I disagree with the conclusion the DHS followed an improper procedure because I do not believe the regulation at issue gives binding decision-making authority to the persons selected to participate in the conference required by the regulation.  Second, I believe it is important to emphasize that the DHS’s failure to give proper preference to the child being placed with the child’s half-sibling is the key factor in deciding to remove the DHS as guardian.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer Minot, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(i) (2019) by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.

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

            The appellant challenges the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to intervene in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: The proposed intervenor did not show a sufficient interest in the matter to intervene to seek custody.  We find no error and affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to an eleven-year-old daughter.  He contends he would have been ready to parent within six months because he would be released from prison on parole soon.  OPINION HOLDS: There is insufficient evidence in the record, other than the father’s assertions, that he will be released on parole in the near future.  He has also never parented the child because he has been incarcerated in another state most of her life.  We do not have reason to believe the need for removal will no longer exist after an extension of six months.  Therefore, we affirm the juvenile court order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s permanency order establishing a guardianship for one of his children.  He contends the Iowa Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification and a guardianship is not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: The father did not preserve error on his reasonable-efforts claim.  We conclude establishment of a guardianship is in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 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 Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            An incarcerated father who had not seen his fourteen-year-old child for nearly six years challenges the termination of his parental rights.  He argues reasonable efforts were not made toward reunification and termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the father’s claims unpersuasive, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (10 pages)

            The State appeals the juvenile court’s denial of the petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father to N.B., born in 2016, and M.B., born in 2017.  The State challenges the juvenile court’s determination that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify these children with the mother and father and that termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the juvenile court that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify N.B and M.B. with the mother and father, we affirm the denial of the State’s petition to terminate the parents’ rights.  As the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, we do not consider whether termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her children.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and the juvenile court should have granted her additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the mother’s parental rights.