2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (12 pages)

            Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination was warranted with respect to the father under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019) and with respect to the mother under section 232.116(1)(g).  We find termination to be in the child’s best interests and refrain from applying a permissive factor as set forth in Iowa Code section 232.116(3).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the terminations of their parental rights to their child.  The mother argues termination is not in the child’s best interests.  The father challenges the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights and argues a number of the juvenile court’s findings are in error.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has yet to comply with the requirement to secure appropriate housing, the child’s emotional upheaval related to interactions with the mother, and the child’s consistent express preference for adoption, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.  Although the father has obtained and maintained employment and housing, circumstances exist that prevent reunification with the child.  Furthermore, because of the father’s inexperience in parenting, the need for consistent intervention regarding appropriate conversation topics and physical interactions, and the child’s express preference for adoption we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jennifer A. Benson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, born in February 2018.  He argues: (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights in denying his motions to continue the termination hearing, (2) the court erred in denying his motion for records, (3) the court erred in taking judicial notice of a prior child-welfare case as well as two criminal cases, (4) the State provided insufficient evidence to support termination, (5) termination is not in the child’s best interests because he loves the child “and there is a closeness there,” and (6) the Iowa Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her 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 Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude the mother has failed to show the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child, we agree with the court’s decision to deny the mother’s request for additional time, and we find the provisions in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2019) should not be applied to prevent termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children.  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).  The juvenile court correctly denied the mother’s request for additional time to work toward reunification and establishment of a guardianship.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State proved the statutory grounds for terminating the father’s parental rights to both children, termination is in the children’s best interest, and consideration of the father’s refusal to participate in drug testing does not violate the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure.  Therefore, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to both children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to his child, contending termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best interest and the department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing, and termination is in the child’s best interests.  Because no credible evidence suggests the need for removal of the child will no longer exist at the end of an additional six-month period, the record does not support continuing the child’s placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to M.D., born in June 2018.  The father challenges the statutory grounds for termination and maintains the court should have applied a permissive factor to save the parent-child relationship, as M.D. remains in the custody of her mother.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She does not contest that grounds for termination exist.  However, she asserts termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS:  We agree with the juvenile court that termination and adoption will best provide N.P. with stability and permanency, and we therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J. (9 pages)

            Randall Brocksieck appeals the sentence and restitution order imposed following his guilty plea.  Brocksieck raises three claims on appeal: (1) the presentence investigation report improperly included a sentencing recommendation; (2) the district court erred by considering improper factors when imposing the five-year sentence; (3) and the court erred by ordering Brocksieck to pay court-appointed trial and appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: The sentencing recommendation in the PSI did not constitute a procedural defect; the district court did not consider any improper factors; and there is not yet a final restitution order regarding attorney fees.  We affirm Brocksieck’s sentence but vacate the portion of the sentencing order referencing attorney fees and remand for entry of a final restitution order.