January 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Zachary Hindman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            Esteban Velazquez-Ramirez appeals the dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: (1) State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566 (Iowa 2017), does not apply retroactively; (2) Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018), does not qualify as a “new ground of . . . law” for purposes Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018); and (3) Allison only applies to second PCR actions filed promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR action. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to ongoing concerns about the parents’ mental health and substance abuse, we find the State proved a statutory ground for termination, and we reject their requests for an additional six months for reunification.  We also reject the father’s statutory and constitutional objections to holding concurrent permanency and termination proceedings, find no abuse of discretion in denying the father’s motion to reopen the record, and conclude reasonable efforts were made to avoid out-of-home placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            A guardian appeals the district court’s order declining to terminate a father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s finding that the father did not abandon the children pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean McPartland, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (12 pages)

            The mother appeals the district court decision granting physical care of her child to the father and ordering her to pay child support.  In the alternative, she argues for increased visitation time.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly awarded the father physical care of the child.  The record does not support an increase in the mother’s visitation time.  Both issues are affirmed.  The award of child support is reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court to make findings regarding the parties’ incomes and an appropriate child support award.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON PARENTS’ APPEALS; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON INTERVENORS’ APPEAL.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (14 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children, and intervening grandparents appeal an order on placement and guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s termination decision.  We reverse the placement/guardianship decision and remand for waiver of the placement investigation and report pursuant to Iowa Code section 600.8(12) (2020) and for consideration of the grandparents as adoptive parents or, alternatively, for appointment of the grandparents as guardians pursuant to Iowa Code section 232D.201(1).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A husband appeals the imposition of a civil no-contact order prohibiting him from contacting his wife, arguing his wife did not establish he committed an assault.  OPINION HOLDS:  As we, like the district court, find the evidence established the husband committed an assault, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (12 pages)

            A.N. appeals the juvenile court’s ruling placing him on the sex offender registry, claiming the sentence was based on insufficient evidence of his sexual motivation, the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue, and his placement on the sex offender registry constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  OPINION HOLDS: The appeal in regards to the sexual motivation of A.N.’s acts is untimely.  The court did not abuse its discretion as A.N. did not prove good cause for his absence and given the impending deadline of A.N.’s eighteenth birthday.  Placement of a juvenile on the sex offender registry, while punitive, is not cruel and unusual punishment categorically or as applied to A.N. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  REVERSED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (12 pages)

            Norma Lund appeals the district court’s judicial review decision reversing the workers’ compensation commissioner’s finding that her bilateral shoulder injuries were caused by her employment with Mercy Medical Center.  She claims the district court misapplied the law and erroneously concluded there was a lack of evidence to support a determination of medical causation.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the decision of the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (4 pages)

            Christopher Stechman appeals, contending the district court considered unproven crimes in imposing sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s statement of reasons for the sentences. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Michael Hooper, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages).

            Robert Edgerton appeals a ruling modifying the joint physical care provision of the stipulated decree dissolving his marriage, challenging the standard employed by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court applied the correct standard and considered appropriate factors in deciding which parent should have physical care.  After doing the same on our de novo review of the record, we affirm the modification ruling placing the children in the mother’s physical care.  We remand for the district court to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Jessica Edgerton. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to ongoing concerns about the parents’ mental health and substance abuse, we find the State proved a statutory ground for termination, and we reject their requests for an additional six months for reunification.  We also reject the father’s statutory and constitutional objections to holding concurrent permanency and termination proceedings, find no abuse of discretion in denying the father’s motion to reopen the record, and conclude reasonable efforts were made to avoid out-of-home placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and seeks additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject both claims on our de novo review of the record and affirm the termination order.