Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1211
View Summary for Case No. 20-1211
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. (9 pages)
The mother of a minor child appeals the decision of the district court granting the child’s father physical care and setting the mother’s visitation rights. OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother put the child in harm’s way by abusing methamphetamine and other concerns with her parenting, we agree physical care of the child should be placed with the father. We modify visitation to continue the parties’ prior arrangement of allowing the child to visit with the mother every Wednesday. We deny both parties’ claims for appellate attorney fees.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1237
View Summary for Case No. 20-1237
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Mark F. Schlenker, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, P.J. (4 pages)
Ronald Cole claims his sentence for operating while intoxicated, first offense, is illegal. He implies it is grossly disproportionate to his crime and, thus, violates his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. He also appears to argue the sentencing court abused its discretion in not properly addressing his potential for rehabilitation through probation and treatment. OPINION HOLDS: Cole’s sentence is well within the statutory limits. We reject his argument that suggests the sentence imposes cruel and unusual punishment. We also find no abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1384
View Summary for Case No. 20-1384
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Michael Hooper, Judge. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (6 pages)
Dusty VanRenan appeals the child-custody provision of the decree dissolving his marriage to Amber VanRenan. He argues the district court should have either enforced the mediated parenting plan or awarded the parties shared physical care of the children. OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that shared physical care is not in the best interest of the children and that deviation from the mediated parenting plan was, thus, warranted. The children are most likely to fulfill the statutory and common-law goals of health, physically and mentally, and social maturity in Amber’s care. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s order awarding Amber physical care of the children. We remand to the district court for consideration of the appellate-attorney fee award.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1515
View Summary for Case No. 20-1515
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (5 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: An extension of time is not warranted due to the mother’s lack of progress, a guardianship is not appropriate, and termination is in the child’s best interests. We affirm.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1523
View Summary for Case No. 20-1523
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Russell G. Keast, District Associate Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (7 pages)
The mother appeals the denial of her petition to terminate the father’s parental rights to B.C., who was born in 2010. The mother alleged two statutory grounds for termination: abandonment and conception as a result of sexual abuse. The district court found one of the statutory grounds for termination was proved—the child was conceived as a result of sexual abuse—but concluded termination is not in B.C.’s best interests. OPINION HOLDS: Because the father’s stated desire to be part of B.C.’s life has not been matched by actions and the family B.C. recognizes is that of his mother, stepmother, and brother, we find termination of the father’s rights is in B.C.’s best interests. We reverse the ruling of the district court and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1541
View Summary for Case No. 20-1541
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (9 pages)
A father appeals the district court order terminating his parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of the father’s rights is supported by the evidence, an extension of time for reunification is not warranted, and none of the permissive exceptions to termination should be applied. We also reject the father’s reasonable-efforts argument. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1559
View Summary for Case No. 20-1559
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (8 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020). OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient evidence supports terminating the father’s parental rights for abandonment and termination is in the children’s best interests. We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1592
View Summary for Case No. 20-1592
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (5 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. OPINION HOLDS: Because the father makes no cogent argument challenging the evidence supporting termination of his parental rights, he has waived this issue. Clear and convincing evidence shows termination is in the child’s best interests. We decline to apply the provisions of Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (2019) to preserve the parent-child relationship.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1639
View Summary for Case No. 20-1639
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (9 pages)
The State and the children’s guardian ad litem appeal the district court’s order modifying the dispositional order. OPINION HOLDS: While several grounds for modification do not find support in the record, the two grounds premised on physical discipline do. Based on those two grounds, we affirm the juvenile court’s modification of the dispositional order.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1660
View Summary for Case No. 20-1660
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (9 pages)
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, born in 2019, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020). Both parents challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the ground for termination, argue termination is contrary to the child’s best interests, and assert the court erred in not allowing them additional time to work toward reunification. The mother also claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification relative to her special needs. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1661
View Summary for Case No. 20-1661
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury 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. (9 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. She argues the statutory grounds authorizing termination were not satisfied, termination is not in the child’s best interest, and she should be given additional time to work toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: The statutory grounds authorizing termination were satisfied, termination is in the child’s best interest, and we do not grant additional time to work toward reunification.
Filed Apr 14, 2021
View Opinion No. 20-1662
View Summary for Case No. 20-1662
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (6 pages)
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s modification of the dispositional order, removing her child from her custody during a child-in-need-of-assistance case. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the record supports the modification, so we affirm.