July 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Ty Rogers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the juvenile court’s permanency goal, the grounds authorizing termination, whether the State made reasonable efforts toward reunification, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, whether permissive statutory exceptions should be applied to preclude termination, and whether his due process rights were violated.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court’s permanency order is not a final appealable order, and it is subsumed into the termination proceeding, so we do not address it.  The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination.  Because the father failed to alert the juvenile court to his reasonable efforts challenge prior to the termination hearing, he waived any challenge.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  There is no compelling reason to apply a permissive statutory exception to preclude termination.  And because the father failed to present his due process claim to the juvenile court, it is not preserved for our review.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals from a district court order terminating his parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600A (2019).  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of the father’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 600A.8(3)(b) and 600A.8(4).  We find termination to be in the best interests of the child.  The district court order is therefore affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A child’s parents separately appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of their parental rights and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winnebago County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (25 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their respective children.  They contend termination was not in the children’s best interests.  They also argue the juvenile court violated their due process rights and abused its discretion by denying their motion to continue and, instead, ordering a fully telephonic termination hearing, pursuant to recent supreme court supervisory orders on the provision of court services during the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic.  The mother separately asserts termination would be detrimental to the children due to her bond with them.  OPINION HOLDS: Examining recent precedent and balancing the need for urgency in securing permanent homes for children consistent with statutory timelines and their best interests against the risk of error in a fully telephonic hearing, we conclude the procedures offered met the requirements of due process.  We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the parents’ motion to continue.  We conclude it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the parents’ rights.  We further find termination is not detrimental to the children due to the parent-child bond with the mother.  We affirm. 

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

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children.  On appeal, the mother contends only that termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests and the permissive exception in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2019) should be applied to save the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father is without standing to contest termination of the mother’s parental rights and fails to advance any argument concerning the termination of his own parental rights.  Regardless, the record clearly shows termination of the father’s parental rights is appropriate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2019). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four 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.  The mother also claims she was “denied due process . . . and/or effective assistance of counsel” on appeal due to the juvenile court’s allowance of her trial counsel to withdraw after the termination hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject the father’s request to provide additional transcripts from other hearings, and we find termination is in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, contending (I) the juvenile court should have placed the child in a guardianship with one of his relatives as an alternative to termination; (II) termination of his parental rights was not in the child’s best interests; and (III) the department of human services failed to timely notify and investigate his relatives as potential placement options.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Because the juvenile court determined that continuing the hearing went against the child’s best interests, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the termination hearing telephonically rather than continuing it until after June 15, 2020.  II. The mother waived error on her claim that the evidence did not support the statutory grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020), and we may affirm on that ground.  Because termination is in the child’s best interests and none of the circumstances listed in section 232.116(3) apply, the statutory requirements for terminating the mother’s parental rights have been met.  III. We decline to grant the mother additional time to address the issues that led to the child’s removal and adjudication as in need of assistance because there is no basis for finding the need for the child’s removal will be eliminated in six months.

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (14 pages)

            Quarzone Erikdey Martin appeals from convictions for second-degree murder, willful injury causing serious injury, and going armed with intent, asserting the court erred in instructing the jury, abused its discretion in rejecting the evidence as to the decedent’s violent character, and in denying his motion for mistrial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the trial court erred in giving an instruction implementing Iowa Code section 704.2B (2017), we reverse and remand for a new trial. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Linda M. Fangman, and George L. Stigler, Judges.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J. (20 pages)

            Mario Goodson appeals his convictions and sentence.  He now appeals raising multiple arguments, including: (1) bad-acts evidence was improperly admitted; (2) the trial judge should have recused himself from the trial and the hearings on the post-trial motions; (3) the first-degree burglary and third-degree sexual abuse offenses should merge; and (4) his sentence is illegal because it specifies a duration for sex-offender-registry obligations.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the convictions and find (1) the bad-acts evidence was admissible, (2) Goodson did not preserve error on the recusal claims, and (3) because we believe the legislature intended separate punishments for first-degree burglary and third-degree sexual assault, we find merger was not appropriate.  (4) But we do vacate Goodson’s sentence in part and remanded for resentencing.