August 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (14 pages)

            Andrea Canby, formerly Andrea Hargrafen, appeals the parenting time and physical care provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree.  Kyle Hargrafen cross-appeals on the issues of physical care, daily video and/or telephone calls, and the distribution of marital property.  Both parties request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (4 pages)

            Gary Lee Jensen appeals the sentence imposed after his written guilty plea to eluding while exceeding the speed limit by twenty-five miles per hour or more, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(2) (2021).  He alleges the district court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm Jensen’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Ann M. Gales, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor, and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, arguing (1) the evidence does not support the grounds for termination, (2) the department of human services failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, (3) termination was not in the child’s best interests, (4) their bond with the child precluded termination, and (5) the district court should have placed the child with “fictive kin.”  The mother also argues (6) DHS “inappropriately delegated its discretion in visitation to the child’s therapist,” and the father argues (7) he should have been afforded six additional months to reunify.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err as it relates to any of these seven arguments and, as such, termination of the parents’ rights to their child is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children, born in 2013 and 2018.  The juvenile court ordered termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2021).  The mother argues the children could have been returned to her care at the time of the termination trial or, in the alternative, that she should have been given additional time to work toward reunification before a permanency decision is made.  She asserts that termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to both children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a dispositional order, contending the court should have returned the child to her custody.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the mother has not demonstrated that the purposes of the order have been achieved and the child could safely be returned home.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Stephen Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to five children, arguing reasonable efforts at reunification were not made and termination is contrary to the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Clinton R. Boddicker, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (16 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals because grounds for termination exist, an extension is unwarranted, termination is in the child’s best interests, and we decline to invoke a permissive exception. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the statutory grounds for termination and argues termination is not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: A statutory ground authorizing termination is satisfied because the child could not be returned to the father at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination is in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            J.I. appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child, K.H.  OPINION HOLDS: Having concluded K.H. cannot presently be returned to his father’s care, a six-month extension should not be granted, and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm termination of his father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Monty W. Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing the State failed to prove the grounds for termination, termination is not in her children’s best interests, and permissive exceptions should be applied to avoid termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother did not challenge all of the grounds for termination, termination is in the children’s best interests, and the evidence does not support applying any permissive exceptions to termination, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Russell G. Keast, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He asserts termination of his parental rights is not in the children’s best interests, his bond with his children constitutes a permissive exception to preclude termination, and the court should allow him an additional six months to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.