October 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Colleen Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (12 pages)

            Barbara Kavars filed applications for the return of 154 dogs and two cats taken from her property on November 12, 2018.  The district court denied the applications, finding Kavars was not the owner of the animals as a result of a 2018 relinquishment agreement and a prior court ruling of disposition.  Kavars appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his two minor children.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to a missed deadline in advancing his appeal and a lack of extenuating circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal and are required to dismiss it.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  Special Concurrence by Schumacher, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her care.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to the mother’s care and affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize additional supporting points for such result.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie L. Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights in a private termination proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence to show the father abandoned the child and termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            Brandon Kettler appeals from the ruling on his petition to modify provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Jessica Kettler.  Brandon argues: (1) his visitation with the parties’ children should increase; (2) he should remain responsible for the children’s health insurance; (3) his obligations to undergo drug screens and to provide drug test results and mental-health reports to Jessica should terminate after a specified time; and (4) Jessica should not be allowed to suspend his visitation without seeking court approval.  Both parties request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the ruling to suspend Brandon’s parenting time for two months following a positive drug test.  Due to ongoing concerns about Brandon’s mental health and substance abuse, we otherwise affirm the modification ruling and deny the requests for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly S. Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in 2020.  He argues (1) the State failed to prove two of the three grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the court should have granted an exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination, and termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights.  The mother contends (1) the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her care; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the district court should have invoked an exception to termination based on the parent-child bond.  The father (1) challenges the State’s evidence supporting the grounds for termination, including proof that adjudicatory harm still existed; (2) argues termination was not in the children’s best interests; and (3) challenges the State’s failure to provide and file certain documents before the State filed its termination-of-parental-rights petition.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that it is not in the child’s best interests to terminate her rights due to the closeness of the child’s bond with the mother and half-siblings.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we find the State proved that the child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of termination by clear and convincing evidence.  Although the mother desires to parent the child, the record reveals that she is not yet able to consistently provide for the child’s wellbeing.  Even though the mother and child share a bond, it is not so strong that termination would be detrimental to the child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A father and one of his children appeal the termination of the father’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the grounds for termination have been established, a six-month extension is not warranted, and termination is in the best interests of the children.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old child, challenging only the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Despite years of services, the child could not be returned to his mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  Thus, we find clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021) and affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  MOTHER’S APPEAL AFFIRMED; FATHER’S APPEAL REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Nichole and David separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a three-year-old son.  Both allege that severing their legal relationship with their son is not in his best interests and ask us to reverse claiming he is in the legal custody of his maternal grandmother.  In the alternative, both parents ask for more time for reunification.  Nichole asks us to consider placing the child in a guardianship with her mother.  OPINION HOLDS: We reach different results for each parent.  We affirm termination of Nichole’s parental rights.  But we find delaying permanency for six months would provide enough time for David to meet expected behavioral changes that would eliminate the need for the child’s removal.  We reverse and remand as to David.