2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            The State appeals the juvenile court’s decision denying a child-in-need-of-assistance petition.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the juvenile court should have granted the State’s petition for adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2020).  We also conclude the court should have continued the removal of the child from the parents’ care.  We reverse the decision of the juvenile court and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (8 pages)

            A grandmother appeals the denial of her petitions to adopt two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because DHS’s consent was necessary to the adoption, consent was withdrawn prior to the adoption hearing, and DHS made its decision in the best interests of the children, we affirm the juvenile court’s denial of the grandmother’s petitions to adopt.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O'Brien County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a juvenile court decision adjudicating her child to be in need of assistance (CINA).  OPINION HOLDS: The evidence shows it is imminently likely the child will suffer harmful effects from the care provided by those the mother chooses to watch the child.  Furthermore, we find the CINA adjudication is in the child’s best interests.  The child has special needs, and it is important that he receive care commensurate with those special needs.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (15 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we retain a substantial doubt about the conclusion reached by the juvenile court to terminate parental rights, we reverse termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings.  We find the State did not meet its burden to prove the children could not be returned to the mother’s care by clear and convincing evidence. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The child deserves permanency, and we therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Doyle, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The father of J.H. appeals the review order that terminated the juvenile court jurisdiction and transferred jurisdiction to the probate court for the establishment of a guardianship for J.H.  OPINION HOLDS: Because transferring jurisdiction was a proper action under the Iowa Code and J.H. is thriving with her guardian and half-siblings, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            The mother and biological father of the child separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the child could not be returned to either parent at the time of the termination hearing and termination of the parents’ parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON ALL THREE APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and two fathers separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for termination for all three parents, termination is in the children’s best interests, and an extension of time is not warranted.  We affirm on all three appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, 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, contending (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; (3) the district court should have invoked an exception to termination based on the bond he shared with the child; and (4) the district court should have afforded him additional time to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence shows the child cannot be returned to the father’s care without risk of further adjudicatory harm, the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) have been met.  Because termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son.  She argues she should have been afforded additional time for reunification efforts and that a guardianship was the preferred permanency option over termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2020).  On appeal, the mother claims the juvenile court erred in holding the termination hearing telephonically despite her refusal to waive her personal presence and termination is contrary to the children’s best interests given the detriment resulting from severance of the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.