June 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: We grant the mother’s request for delayed appeal but affirm the termination of her parental rights.  There is no basis for delaying permanency another six months, and the evidence shows terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the adjudication of his children as children in need of assistance (CINA).  He argues (1) the juvenile court impermissibly delegated its authority to set visitation, (2) it is not in his child’s best interest to leave visitation at the discretion of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), (3) the court should not have ordered him to produce his child’s cell phone or a corresponding report an expert prepared related to the phone, and (4) the State failed to establish statutory grounds for adjudication.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court did not impermissibly delegate its authority to set visitation, and it was in the child’s best interest to permit DHS to manage the frequency and terms of visitation.  The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the father to produce the phone and corresponding expert report.  The father waived his challenge to the grounds authorizing adjudication of one child.  And the father’s credibility challenge to other child is unsuccessful, so the grounds authorizing adjudication of the child as CINA are satisfied.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights to their child.  The parents argue termination is not in their child’s best interest and request additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of both parent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.  We grant neither parent additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We grant the father’s request for a delayed appeal.  The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the father’s motion for a continuance.  We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the termination of the father’s parental rights and termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.,  Opinion by Ahlers, J., Dissent by Tabor, J.  (13 pages)

            The mother and the father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the record at the time of the termination hearing does not show the Indian Child Welfare Act applies to this proceeding.  Furthermore, the parents failed to present a reviewable issue arising from their claims of progress, and the parents waived any claim for additional or alternative services.  Therefore, we affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the juvenile court correctly concluded Z.K. is not an Indian child protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the removal of his child from his custody.  He contends (1) he “was denied a fair trial and due process . . . due to being denied a speedy temporary removal hearing, by being denied the right to cross examine the State’s witness, and by terminating the removal hearing prior to all evidence being submitted” and (2) “[t]here was no factual or legal basis to temporarily remove the child from [his] care, as there was no imminent danger to the child and the child was not at risk of being exposed to further adjudicatory harm in [his] home.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because the issues the father raises are moot, we dismiss his appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the grounds for termination and the court’s “pattern of conduct” consideration for termination, argues termination is not in the best interests of the child, and asks the court to apply two of the permissive exceptions against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We find a ground for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence, the mother’s behavior was a valid concern, termination was in the child’s best interests, and we decline to apply the exceptions to termination in this case.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to S.F., born in 2015.  She contends the statutory ground for termination was not proved or, alternatively, the court should have delayed permanency to give her additional time to work toward reunification.  Additionally, she maintains it is not the child’s best interests to terminate her rights because of their close bond.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to their child.  Both contend the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, the court should have granted additional time to work toward reunification, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the department of human services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence for termination of both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020).  We also find the father did not show the closeness of his parent-child relationship met the statutory factor precluding termination under section 232.116(3)(c).  Thus, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Russell G. Keast, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State failed to prove grounds for termination, termination is not in the best interests of the child, and her rights should not have been terminated due to the closeness of the parent-child bond.  The mother also argues she should have been given an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that the State established by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination, establishing the only contested element of termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020).  The mother’s history of inactivity in this case and the child’s immediate need for permanency support the district court’s decision to refuse the mother an additional six months to work toward reunification.  We also agree with the district court that termination is in the child’s best interests and no permissive exception to termination applies.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachel E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  The mother claims the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing.  The mother and father also claim the juvenile court should have applied a permissive statutory exception to termination, arguing termination is detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother and father’s parental rights and decline to apply a statutory exception to termination.