July 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the district court order terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights.  We also find termination of his rights is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his two children.  On appeal, he argues the statutory grounds for termination were not met; termination is not in the children’s best interests; and because the children are in their grandmother’s custody, an exception should preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds for termination were proved; termination is in the children’s best interests; and the children being placed in the grandmother’s custody does not warrant a refusal to terminate the father’s rights, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Regarding the issues raised by the mother: (1) she did not timely raise the issue of reasonable efforts; (2) there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of her parental rights; (3) a six-month extension of time is not warranted; and (4) the evidence does not show that the parent-child relationship is so close that it would be appropriate to deny termination.  For the father: (1) termination of his parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence and (2) the juvenile court properly denied his request for additional time to work on reunification.  We affirm the termination of parental rights for both parents.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (9 pages)

            J.C. and A.C., former foster parents of the child in interest, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene, as well as the denial of their requests to set aside an order modifying placement, and remove the Department of Human Services as guardian of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no legal error, we affirm the denial of the former foster parent’s motion to intervene and affirm the denial of their requests to set aside the modification order and remove DHS as guardian.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            The father of the minor child appeals the order terminating the father’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find a statutory ground for termination satisfied, and we are not persuaded by his request for an additional six months to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending she was denied (1) “her state and federal constitutional rights to due process by the failure to provide a transcript of trial proceedings prior to the filing of this Petition on Appeal”; (2) “reasonable effort services by [the department of human services’] failure to facilitate residential chemical dependency treatment after [she] had been evaluated with a recommendation for such”; and (3) her “request for a 6-month extension to allow her to accomplish residential chemical dependency treatment.”  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court order granting the State’s petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, claiming the grounds for termination were not established, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and an exception to termination should be applied.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Dissent by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (28 pages)

            This appeal involves the parental rights to T.F. and T.F., born in 2017 and 2019, who are both an “Indian child.”  The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights; only the father and the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska appeal.  The father maintains (1) we should consider his petition even though his notice of appeal was untimely because the delay is due to ineffective assistance from his counsel; (2) the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to have the proceedings transferred to the jurisdiction of the tribal court; (3) the State failed to meet its burden to terminate his rights under the Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); and (4) the State failed to make “active efforts” as mandated by ICWA.  In a separate appeal, the tribe argues the juvenile court (1) erred by using the “clear and convincing” standard instead of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard as ICWA requires; (2) erred in relying on only one qualified expert witness (QEW) and in using their testimony outside the scope of ICWA’s requirements for a QEW; (3) was wrong to find the State made “active efforts”; and (4) should have granted the motion to transfer jurisdiction to the tribe.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on recent case law, we accept the father’s delayed appeal.  After considering the merits, we affirm the juvenile court’s decision to deny transfer of jurisdiction to the tribe and the termination of the father’s parental rights.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because the reasons for denial of transfer contravene a directly applicable federal regulation and Iowa’s statutory best-interest definition and because the tribe intervened and provided expert testimony on the tribe’s intent to ensure the children’s safety, I would reverse the district court’s denial of the tribe’s motion to transfer jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no grounds to reverse the termination order, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The statutory grounds authorizing termination were satisfied because the children cannot safely return to the parents’ care.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  And neither parent is entitled to additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Jennifer Bahr, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J. and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She (1) challenges one of the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) argues termination was not in the child’s best interest; (3) contends the district court should have granted an exception to termination based on the parent-child bond; and (4) asserts the district court should have afforded her additional time to reunify with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.