September 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  FATHER’S APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTHER’S APPEAL affirmed.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (9 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  The father’s petition on appeal was not timely filed, but he requests a delayed appeal.  The mother argues that the State did not prove that she could not resume custody of her children and that termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The father does not qualify for a delayed appeal, so we dismiss his appeal.  Clear and convincing evidence showed that the mother was not able to resume custody of her children at the time of termination and that termination is in the best interests of the children.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights alleging the court abused its discretion by denying her request for additional drug testing and violated her constitutional rights to counsel and to due process.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the court did not err in denying the request for additional drug testing and so did not violate the mother’s constitutional rights.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Angeline M. Johnston, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, claiming it was not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two-year-old daughter under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Despite the father’s progress toward reunification, there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s termination of parental rights.  And the termination was in the child’s best interests.  So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (2 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother offers no meaningful substantive argument to facilitate appellate review, so we affirm without further opinion, deeming the arguments waived. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal a district court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We grant the parents’ requests for consideration of their petitions on appeal, which were filed three days late.  There is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, an extension of time is not warranted, and termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  We find it is in the children’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights and the court properly did not apply any of the exceptions to termination.  We affirm the district court’s decision terminating the parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Ty Rogers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021); and we conclude the father did not carry his burden to show the father-child bond was such that termination of his parental rights would be detrimental to the child; and termination of parental rights and adoption will best provide for the child’s safety, long-term nurturing and growth, and physical, mental, and emotional condition and needs; we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State has established the grounds for termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, reasonable efforts were made to reunite the parents with the child, and an additional extension of time is not warranted.  We affirm both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord, III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has not shown she can protect the child from traumatic injury, the State has proved a statutory ground for termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, and any bond does not preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights.  The mother argues that the State did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification and that termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother did not bring concerns to the court about the services offered to her until the termination hearing.  Termination was in the best interests of the child.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of parental rights over his four children.  He argues that (1) the State failed to meet its burden; (2) termination was not in his children’s best interests; and (3) the district court should have used the permissive factors to avoid termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s history of continuing substance abuse posed a danger to the children.  And the father’s inability to appreciate and prevent this danger provided clear and convincing evidence for terminating his parental rights.  And termination was in the children’s best interests.  Finally, because the father did not meet his burden, the district court properly rejected the permissive factors.  Affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (4 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to J.M., who was born in 2020.  As we understand the father’s arguments, he requests more time to work toward reunification and argues that the Iowa Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him and J.M.  OPINION HOLDS: A delay in permanency is not warranted here, and the father failed to raise the issue of reasonable efforts before the termination period so we do not consider it.  We affirm.