2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals from a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) dispositional order that granted the department of human services and the county attorney a limited waiver of confidentiality so the state authorities could inform other entities of the findings in the case and provide notice that N.S. presents a danger to children with whom he has unsupervised contact.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court order that provided state authorities could advise “any relevant private or governmental entity in order to reasonably protect children in this community” exceeded statutory confidentiality in CINA proceedings and on remand must be limited to what statutes authorize.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  OPINION HOLDS: We may affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  The record shows termination is in the child’s best interests given each parent’s lack of progress during the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings.  The father failed to preserve error on his challenge to the reasonable-efforts requirement.  And we decline to delay permanency for six months because there is no basis for finding the need for the child’s removal would no longer exist at the end of that period.  We affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

            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 Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children.  Each contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination of their parental rights is not in the best interests of the children, and the court should allow them an additional six months to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Thomas Mott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children, D.G., born in 2013, and M.L., born in 2018.  The mother purports to challenge whether the children could be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing in December 2019, if termination is in the children’s best interests, and whether a permissive factor in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2019) precludes termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Insofar as her claims have been preserved for our review, we find the statutory grounds for termination were met and termination of the mother’s rights is in these children’s best interests.  We refuse to consider the mother’s claim regarding the application of permissive factors, as she did not present evidence nor make argument to the juvenile court regarding the preservation of her rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: A statutory ground authorizing termination is satisfied.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We decline to apply any of the permissive exceptions to termination found in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2019). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their one-year-old child, A.C.  The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights under paragraphs (h) and (l) of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2019) and also terminated the father’s rights under paragraph (e).  Here, the mother challenges one of the statutory grounds, argues additional time for reunification is warranted, and asks that a permissive factor be applied to save the parent-child relationship.  The father challenges two of the statutory grounds for termination, argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification, and asks that a permissive factor be applied to save the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: Having reviewed each of the issues preserved for our review, we affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  Special Concurrence by Doyle, J.  (15 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination is appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur with the majority’s disposition, but take this opportunity to comment on the conundrum faced by the court—has the supreme court supplanted the “adjudicatory harm” standard with a more relaxed “safely returned” standard in applying the fourth element of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)?  I believe the “safely returned” standard is merely judicial shorthand for the “adjudicatory harm” standard, and under either, the State must show that the child cannot be returned to the parent’s custody without risk of adjudicatory harm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals from a district court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination warranted under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  We further agree with the denial of a six-month extension.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of the six-month extension requested by the mother pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2019). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights by the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals a combined order of dispositional review and confirming removal of the child from the mother’s care.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on our de novo review, the juvenile court’s order confirming removal of the child from the mother’s care and custody and placing the child in the sole care and custody of the father subject to the mother’s supervised visitation is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights.  The father waived his claim concerning reasonable efforts by not raising it before the juvenile court.  We conclude termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The Department of Human Services (DHS) is required to follow its statutory mandate to provide reunification services even when a parent is incarcerated.  Yet, it does not appear the DHS made any real effort to assess the feasibility of regular supervised visits between J.S. and his father when he was incarcerated in Wisconsin.  Lack of supervised visitation for the father during that time was a lost opportunity.  Resources are available to help parents’ attorneys navigate the issues facing incarcerated parents and the DHS workers must not operate on the assumption that incarcerated parents cannot be allowed visitation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interest.  She also argues the child’s placement with a relative and the closeness of her bond with the child should preclude termination or at least warrant a guardianship instead.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interest and the permissive exceptions of section 232.116(3) do not justify avoidance of termination in favor of a guardianship.  We affirm.