2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to three children.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to show the children could not be safely returned to the mother’s care and her parental rights were properly terminated.  We find the services provided to the mother were reasonable under the facts of the case.  We determine termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied.  We affirm the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a three-year-old son.  He challenges the statutory grounds for termination and asks for a delay in permanency.  He also argues termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State proved a statutory ground for termination.  And we find termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, Z.P., born in late 2016.  The father challenges the statutory ground for termination and argues the loss of his rights is not in Z.P.’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two children pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court, argue termination is contrary to the children’s best interests, and maintain the court should have applied the exception to termination contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  She raises three issues: (1) whether termination is in the best interest of the children; (2) whether the juvenile court erred by admitting into evidence exhibits alleged to be untimely filed or, alternatively, not granting the mother’s request for a continuance; and (3) whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence exhibits that were deemed timely because the juvenile court held the record open.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination is in the best interest of the children, and the mother waived the remaining issues by failing to adequately argue them in her filings with this court.

No. 20-0625   IN RE A.F.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, the court should have granted him additional time to work toward reunification, the department of human services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father made little if any progress in his ability to safely care for the children and termination is in their best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, M.E., born in 2016.  He challenges the statutory ground for termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) (2019).  Additionally, as an incarcerated parent who was unable to participate by telephone on the first day of the termination hearing, the father challenges the process that was afforded him regarding the day he was unable to participate.  OPINION HOLDS: We cannot find a due process violation here.  Our record is silent as to facts underlying the complaint the father now makes, and the father never raised this issue with the juvenile court.  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights under paragraph (h) of section 232.116(1). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Mary Pat Gunderson and David M. Porter, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  May, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (14 pages).

            Khamfay Lovan appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of a firearm by a felon.  OPINION HOLDS: Lovan was not denied his right to a speedy trial.  We conclude the district court properly denied Lovan’s motion to suppress.  Lovan has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm Lovan’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            Plaintiff appeals the district court’s rulings on several issues in his defamation action.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on the motion to compel, the motion in limine, and the partial directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case.  We find plaintiff’s arguments concerning whether certain statements were protected by a qualified privilege to be irrelevant, as the jury must have found defendants met their burden to prove the affirmative defense of truth.  For this same reason, the court did not err by granting a directed verdict on statements made to a third party who repeated the statements to others.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Timothy O’Grady, Judge.  JUDGMENT OF CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, and SENTENCES AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (15 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction on three counts of second-degree sexual abuse. OPINION HOLDS: The defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.  We reverse only the determinations as to restitution, which should be calculated in accordance with Iowa Supreme Court precedent.