2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals from the custody decree granting the mother of the children physical care.  He contends he should have been given physical care.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of the record, we agree with the district court that the mother edges out the father in terms of her ability to minister to the long-range needs of the two children, especially the older child who has special needs.  So we affirm the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children, A.S., L.C., and V.F.   She argues the evidence submitted was insufficient to terminate her parental rights, termination is not in the children’s best interest, and the permissive factors in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) preclude terminating her parental rights.  She further argues the court appointed special advocate (CASA) had a conflict of interest that deprived her of her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence supported termination.  Termination was in the children’s best interest.  The permissive factors did not warrant declining to terminate.  The mother has not shown she was denied due process of law by the CASA’s conflict of interest because she has not shown she was actually prejudiced by the conflict.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I specially concur in the majority decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.  I believe the mother has the right to raise the issue of the court appointed special advocate’s (CASA) conflict of interest, and any person charged with authority to recommend termination, as the CASA did in her report, cannot avoid a conflict if he or she also wishes to be considered for adoption.  However, because substantial evidence beyond the CASA’s detailed reports existed to support the decision to terminate and the mother failed to show prejudice from the conflict created by the CASA, I agree we should affirm the termination of the mother's rights.  I only write separately to suggest it makes little difference who created the conflict, as the potential harm to the process exists in spite of the distinction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights to twins under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2019).  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record anew, we reach the same conclusions as the juvenile court.  The twins’ mother offered clear and convincing proof the father made, at best, a marginal effort to support or communicate with the twins.  Ample evidence also buoys her position that termination is in their best interests, especially for the twin who has special needs.  We thus affirm the termination order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            Brittney Ellingson appeals the district court’s physical care determination.  Instead, she requests joint physical care.  OPINION HOLDS: We find joint physical care is not in the child’s best interest.  So we affirm the district court’s determination.  We also decline to award Tyler Teggatz appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination of the father’s rights is appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.  We also conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is appropriate and consistent with the children’s best interests.

            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.