November 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence shows the mother abandoned the child and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            E.J. appeals the denial of her motion to intervene in the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings involving her half-sister.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in denying the motion to intervene.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing, termination is contrary to the child’s best interests, and permanency should have been deferred for an additional six months.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights as to their minor child.  OPINION HOLDS:  Both parties waived several of their claimed challenges.  On the issues properly raised, there is clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew J. Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            A young mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old child.  She challenges the statutory ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h)  (2021) and argues the juvenile court should have granted her a six-month extension to participate in additional services once she turned age eighteen.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate and an extension was not warranted, we affirm the termination order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (5 pages)

            Christopher appeals the termination of his parental rights to his infant son.  He argues that the State failed to meet its burden under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(j) (2021) because he was unlikely to be imprisoned for over five years.  Alternatively, Christopher argues that termination was not in the child’s best interests, or a permissive exception should apply.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Christopher is imprisoned for assault on his child, the five-year requirement is inapplicable, and the State presented clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.  And Christopher’s treatment toward his son and subsequent incarceration cut against his remaining arguments.  We affirm.