2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; termination was not in the children’s best interests; and the district court should have placed the children in a guardianship in lieu of terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 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 children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, contending: (1) the State failed to prove the ground for termination cited by the district court; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; (3) the district court should not have terminated her parental rights given the bond she shared with the child; and (4) she should have been afforded additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal from an order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned safely to either parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  Because the continued offer and receipt of services for an additional six months will not remedy the concerns that brought the child to the court’s attention, an extension of time is unwarranted.  Considering the child’s safety and need for a permanent home, termination is in the child’s best interests.  

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

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a two-year-old child.  They argue the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and that termination is detrimental to their child due to the parent-child bond.  OPINION HOLDS:  The State showed by clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be returned to the home of either parent at the present time, proving the statutory ground for termination.  And the parent-child bond is not strong enough to result in disadvantage to the child following termination.  We affirm the termination as to both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals a permanency order transferring guardianship and custody of her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s permanency order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the adjudication of his children as children in need of assistance, contending the State did not prove the adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find clear and convincing evidence to support the adjudication on each ground found by the juvenile court, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Clear and convincing evidence shows that returning the child to the mother’s care will expose the child to a harm warranting a new child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication.  The grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019) have been met.  The child is not so closely bonded with the mother that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to the child.  Because termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  II. We deny the father’s request to delay permanency six months because the issues that led to the child’s removal would continue to exist at the end of the six months.  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.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals a juvenile court review order asking the department of human services to commence a child protective assessment investigating him for possible child abuse of one daughter, after the daughter raised concerns about his recent actions to the court.  He also challenges the juvenile court’s suspension of his visitation with the child until completion of the investigation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father did not object to the order on the child protective assessment below, we do not address it on appeal.  We also find the visitation suspension is moot because the father subsequently was arrested and incarcerated and was evicted from his apartment, requiring a new assessment of his visitation.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Ernest Gaston appeals his convictions for eluding and possession of marijuana, third or subsequent offense.  OPINION HOLDS: Gaston claims he was not competent to plead guilty to the offenses.  We conclude the evidence does not show the district court should have scheduled a competency hearing.  For this reason, we find no error in the acceptance of the pleas.  We affirm Gaston’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carla T. Schemmel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (4 pages)

            A.R. appeals the district court’s finding of serious mental impairment.  A.R. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish she posed a risk of emotional or physical danger to herself or others.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court found that if not committed A.R. was likely to inflict serious emotional injury on members of her family who lacked reasonable opportunity to avoid contact with her.  There is substantial evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding, and we therefore affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl E. Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (6 pages)

            Ronald Downs seeks to vacate his conviction for being voluntarily absent from custody in violation of Iowa Code section 719.4(3) (2018).  Downs pleaded guilty and waived reporting of the combined plea and sentencing hearing.  On appeal, Downs alleges trial counsel was ineffective because he did not inform him of a possible twenty-five percent collection fee on delinquent court debt, did not provide adequate information on the statutory surcharges, misadvised him of the penal consequences of his plea, and did not adequately investigate the State’s evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: On the first and second claims, we find the record adequate to reject Downs’s claims of ineffective assistance.  Because the record requires more development to resolve Downs’s third and fourth claims, we preserve them for a possible postconviction-relief action.