2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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. 

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

            A father appeals a permanency order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding setting the permanency goal as establishment of a guardianship in maternal relatives.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father’s arguments insufficient to facilitate appellate review, deem them waived, and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M. N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            L.K. appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State did not prove her child could not be returned to her care, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and termination will be detrimental because of the closeness of her and her child’s bond.  OPINION HOLDS: The State did meet its statutory burden to prove the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination.  Termination is in the best interests of the child.  Termination will not be detrimental due to the closeness of the bond between L.K. and her child.  We affirm the termination of L.K.’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court order terminating her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence, the mother should not be granted an extension of time, termination is in the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, J., and Vogel and Doyle, S.J.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            David Willock appeals the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject Willock’s claims as untimely and find no structural error in his counsel’s representation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Markell Price appeals from his convictions of second-degree murder and third-degree robbery.  Price challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, (2) the district court’s evidentiary ruling excluding a 911 call in which another person made incriminating statements about the murder, and (3) the court’s denial of his Batson challenge when the State used a peremptory strike on a Black potential juror.  OPINION HOLDS: Price failed to preserve error on either his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims or his evidentiary challenge, so we do not reach the merits of those issues.  On de novo review, we affirm the district court’s denial of Price’s Batson challenge.  We affirm both of Price’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, John G. Linn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Ricky Joe Blodgett appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Blodgett’s entire application is barred by the statute of limitations, we affirm the denial of his application.  We do not reach his additional pro se claims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (13 pages)

            Alf Freddie Clark appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, and felon in possession of a firearm.  OPINION HOLDS: Clark fails to establish a violation of his due process rights based on prosecutorial misconduct or a violation of his right to confrontation based on admission of the deposition of a witness who was unavailable at trial.  We affirm Clark’s convictions.