2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Chad Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J. and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            Anthony Rickard appeals the physical care and visitation provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Kelsey Rickard.  He argues the district court erred in failing to award him physical care of the parties’ children or that joint physical care should have been awarded.  Anthony also argues the district court erred in not awarding him more visitation time.  OPINION HOLDS: Our de novo review of the record reveals that joint physical care is not in the best interests of the parties’ children.  We agree that the physical care award to Kelsey will place the children in the best position for long-term growth and development.  We also agree that the district court’s visitation award provides Anthony liberal time with the children and is in the best interests of the children.  We affirm the decree dissolving the parties’ marriage.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (11 pages)

                Timothy Wolfswinkel appeals an order denying his request for modification of physical care, support, and visitation.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no grounds to disturb the district court’s order.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Chad Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            Mackenzie Pitcairn appeals the dismissal of her petition for dissolution of her marriage to Simon Renaud, arguing the district court abused its discretion in granting Renaud’s pre-answer motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse in the trial court’s consideration of the relevant factors, and that substantial evidence exists in the record to support its decision.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.  We further decline to award appellate attorney fees.

No. 21-0308   IN RE D.C.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the district court order terminating his parental rights to his young son, D.C.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father’s arguments as to the statutory grounds relied on by the district court to be unpreserved.  On our de novo review, we determine termination of the father’s parental rights is in D.C.’s best interests and a permissive exception should not be applied.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s order terminating parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established the statutory grounds authorizing termination, and DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We decline to apply Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c) (2020) to preclude termination.  The parents are not entitled to additional time to work toward reunification.  Establishment of a guardianship with the paternal grandparents was not in the children’s best interests.  The father does not have standing on post-termination placement issues.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2016, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020), arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the final element of that provision—that the child could not be returned to their care at the time of the termination hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: We deem the mother’s argument waived and, alternatively, conclude the evidence was sufficient to support termination.  We affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J. and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s order regarding permanency review and removal, alleging the district court erred in (1) not forcing a child to appear in violation of Iowa Code section 232.91 (2020) and (2) finding clear and convincing evidence of imminent harm leading to removal.  OPINION HOLDS: We deem the father’s arguments waived and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, S.S., who was born in 2020.  She argues (1) the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child and (2) termination is not in S.S.’s best interests so the court should have utilized another permanency option, such as guardianship with a relative.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Jeffry Waite appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of lascivious conduct with a child and five counts of sexual abuse in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Waite’s claims of vouching during the testimony of the State’s expert witness and during the prosecutor’s closing arguments.  We also find sufficient evidence to support Waite’s convictions on all six counts, and we find no abuse of discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms of incarceration.  Therefore, we affirm his convictions and sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (13 pages)

            Willard McNaughton appeals an order declaring the parties’ rights in an easement.  He argues the trial court erred in (1) concluding he publicly dedicated a portion of the easement to the City of Lawton (city), (2) determining in the alternative that the easement was appurtenant to adjoining property, and (3) awarding common law attorney fees to the defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of public dedication, (2) the easement is not appurtenant in nature, and (3) the defendants were not entitled to an award of common law attorney fees.  We reverse the district court on each of those points, and we remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (29 pages)

            William Burton shot and killed Cory Channon in Channon’s home.  Burton was charged with first-degree murder and convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder following a jury trial.  On appeal, Burton contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial and abused its discretion in its rulings on the evidence, denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and improperly instructing the jury that malice aforethought may be inferred from the use of a dangerous weapon.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial, and the court’s evidentiary rulings either were not an abuse of discretion or did not result in prejudice to the defendant.  The evidence supported the jury instruction allowing an inference of malice aforethought from the use of dangerous weapon, and substantial evidence supports the conviction of second-degree murder.   We therefore affirm.