2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Sondra Thurman appeals the district court’s decision denying her request to modify the physical care provision of the paternity decree placing the parties’ two children in the physical care of Jeremy Shuey.  OPINION HOLDS: Sondra has failed to show a substantial change in circumstances.  After considering the financial conditions of the parties, we deny Jeremy’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (4 pages)

            A defendant appeals his consecutive sentences contending the court failed to properly weigh the presentence investigation (PSI) report’s recommendation or consider that his three offenses concerned the same circumstances.  OPINION HOLDS: The court is not bound by the PSI report’s recommendation.  The court did consider the report, along with other appropriate factors, and the similar circumstances of the offenses had no bearing the separate and distinct harms inflicted on the victim.  We affirm the consecutive sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals from an order modifying physical care of his child and placing the child with the mother.  He also challenges the resulting modification of child support.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother established a material and substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change in the child’s physical care.  The mother can provide superior care to the child, so we agree with the district court’s modification of physical care.  Accordingly, the district court was correct to also modify the child support award to reflect the change in physical care.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights through an Iowa Code chapter 600A (2021) action.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the father abandoned the child for two reasons.  First, he does not challenge the finding that he failed to provide the child with financial support within his means.  And second, the father has not maintained contact with the child, and the mother did not prevent contact between the father and child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to L.S., who was born in early 2021. OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that it is not in L.S.’s best interests to give the mother additional time to work toward reunification.  As to the father—he does not challenge termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2022), termination of his rights is in L.S.’s best interests, and we cannot say the child could be in his care in six months.  We affirm the termination of each parent’s rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, 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.  Both challenge the statutory grounds authorizing termination and whether the juvenile court should have given them the full six months of a previously granted extension to work toward reunification.  The mother also argues termination is not in the children’s best interests and that her bond with the children should preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The children could not be safely returned to either parent, so statutory grounds authorizing termination were met.  The court was not required to wait the full six months of the previously granted extension before terminating the parents’ rights.  Termination of the mother’s rights was in the children’s best interests.  And the mother’s bond with the children was not strong enough to preclude termination.

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

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, who is now four years old.  He contends the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is not in the child’s best interests, and he asks to delay permanency for six months.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we are unconvinced by any of his three arguments, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  The father argues the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the juvenile court should have used a permissive exception to avoid termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist, termination is in the child’s best interests, and the permissive exception is not appropriate, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children, born in 2018 and 2019.  Both parents (I) challenge the evidence supporting the ground for termination cited by the juvenile court; (II) argue termination was not in the children’s best interests; (III) assert termination was detrimental due to the closeness of the parent-child bond; and (IV) argue they should have been afforded six additional months to facilitate reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights to these two children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan Black, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to the two youngest of their five children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2022).  Claiming that cultural differences were the motivating factor in terminating their parental rights, the parents challenge each of the three steps in the termination process.  The father also claims he should have been granted more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating both parents’ rights to these two children.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights.  They contend the court should have instituted a guardianship in lieu of termination based on the best interests of the children, or applied a statutory exception to termination.  They also claim the juvenile court should have bifurcated the role of guardian ad litem and counsel for one of the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the parents’ rights is in the best interests of the children, and none of the statutory exceptions apply.  We also find a guardianship is not appropriate on these facts and that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to bifurcate the attorney and guardian ad litem’s role for the eldest child.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two sons.  He argues the evidence cited by the district court was insufficient to terminate his rights, termination was not in the children’s best interests due to their close bond, and he should be allowed six months to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is sufficient evidence of the father’s active methamphetamine addiction and high risk of relapse, the disadvantages of terminating the parent-child relationships are outweighed by safety concerns for the children, and no specific reasoning exists to believe that such concerns will be remedied within six months, we affirm.