2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (17 pages)

            David Sokol appeals the decree dissolving his marriage to Rachael Sokol.  He contends the court erred in providing Rachael tie-breaking authority within the award of joint legal custody.  He also claims the court erred in its property distribution, the amount and duration of spousal support, and in declining to award David trial attorney fees.  On appeal, both parties request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine the district court improperly awarded Rachael tie-breaking authority in its joint-custody arrangement and its award of spousal support was inequitable.  We affirm the court’s property distribution and the court’s refusal to award David trial attorney fees.  We remand for an award of reasonable appellate attorney fees to David.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            The Estate of Roberta Ann Butterfield appeals the district court’s dismissal of its claims against Chautauqua Guest Home, Inc. for failure to provide a certificate of merit affidavit pursuant to Iowa Code section 147.140 (2020).  The Estate contends it was not required to submit an affidavit under the statute, and if such an affidavit was required, then (1) the parties impliedly contracted out of the requirement, (2) Chautauqua waived the requirement, (3) the Estate substantially complied with the requirement, and/or (4) Chautauqua should be estopped from dismissal.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding an affidavit was required and failure to supply one was not relieved by the actions of either party, we affirm the dismissal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            The father appeals the private termination of his parental rights in an action brought by the child’s legal custodian to allow the child’s adoption.  The child’s mother, who voluntarily terminated her rights, joins the custodian in supporting termination of the father’s rights based on abandonment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the custodian proved the father’s actions did not show a commitment to the child when he knew of the mother’s pregnancy nor after the child’s birth, the custodian proved abandonment.  We affirm.

            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.