September 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachel E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals a statutory ground authorizing termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father only challenges one of the two statutory grounds authorizing termination, we affirm on the unchallenged ground.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            Ronald (Ronnie) Morgan appeals the district court’s disposition of his petition to modify visitation, custody, and child support for two minor children.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court acted equitably and consistently with the children’s best interests by refusing to confer legal custody or decrease child support for Ronnie.  On those issues we affirm.  However, we remand to the district court to set a visitation schedule consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (3 pages)

            Kevin Maas appeals his conviction based on an alleged defect in his plea proceedings.  He contends the record shows no evidence that he was advised of his constitutional rights before entering a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: As Maas has not demonstrated a potential ground for relief to support an appeal from a guilty plea, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and it must be dismissed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Mark Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his six-year-old child under Iowa Code section 600A.8 (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence shows the father abandoned the child under section 600A.8(3)(b) and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Denyel Jones and Jeremy Bowman are the never-married parents of one child.  After Denyel moved with the child to Arizona, Jeremy asked the court to award the parents joint legal custody and to give him physical care of the child.  The district court gave Denyel physical care, which Jeremy appeals.  Each parent asks for appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We give Jeremy physical care of the child; we decline to award either parent appellate attorney fees.  We remand to the district court to determine Denyel’s child-support obligation consistent with the change in physical care. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds for termination, the efforts made to reunify her with the children, and the denial of her request for more time.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children, T.P. and H.P.  The mother argues she should have been granted a continuance of the termination hearing, while the father contends, he should have received an exception because he is incarcerated.  Both maintain termination is not in the best interests of the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no merit to the arguments tenuously outlined by either parent, we affirm termination of their parental rights to both children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            Benjamin Hunsucker appeals the suspended sentences imposed following his written guilty pleas to first-degree harassment and stalking, claiming “he misunderstood the plea agreement”; he was not provided with evidence “that would have been favorable to the defense”; and a deferred judgment should have been granted.  OPINION HOLDS: Good cause does not exist to bring the non-sentencing challenges, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying deferred judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (11 pages)

            M.K. appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: We find reasonable effort services were provided, the statutory ground for termination is satisfied, an extension is not warranted, and termination is in the children’s best interests.  Therefore, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to S.P. and T.P.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  They both argue (1) the statutory grounds relied upon for termination were not satisfied, in part because the State failed to make reasonable efforts towards reunification; (2) termination is not in the child’s best interests; (3) their respective bonds with the child should preclude termination, and (4) they should be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Statutory grounds authorizing termination were satisfied, and the parents’ reasonable-efforts challenges were not preserved.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  The parent-child bonds are not so strong to preclude termination.  And we decline to award either parent additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the grounds for termination have been established, termination is in the children’s best interests, and no permissive exception applies.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds for termination, the efforts made to reunify him with his child, the denial of his request for more time, and the effectiveness of his attorneys.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.