2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the father, who has neither had contact with the child or the mother nor provided for the child’s support in six years, has abandoned the child.  Because termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

No. 22-0514   IN RE J.M.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (l) (2021).  She attacks each of the three steps in the termination framework, argues the court should have exercised the less-restrictive alternative involving placing the children in the father’s custody, and asserts she should have been granted more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

No. 22-0579   IN RE C.R.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending the court “should have chosen to place the child in a relative guardianship” in lieu of terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children, contending (1) termination was not in the children’s best interests; (2) guardianship with the paternal grandparents was the better option; and (3) the district court should not have terminated their parental rights in light of the bond they shared with the children as well as the children’s placement with a relative.  The mother additionally asserts she should have been afforded an additional six months to facilitate reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parents’ rights to the two children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J. Nelson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to this child.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to preserve error on her claim that the State failed to prove statutory grounds for termination.  Nevertheless, de novo review of the record shows statutory grounds for terminating the mother’s rights.  Also, the State provided reasonable efforts prior to termination.  The State proved a statutory ground for termination of the father’s rights, and the father did not preserve error on his claim that a permissive exception should preclude termination.  We similarly find that the State provided the father with reasonable efforts prior to termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the adjudication of his child as in need of assistance, arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion in allowing a social worker’s testimony about the child’s statements describing the father’s sexual abuse and admitting into evidence a written summary and video recording of a forensic interview.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State laid sufficient foundation for the challenged exhibits.  We further find the challenged testimony was cumulative of other evidence presented and therefore not prejudicial.  We affirm adjudication.

No. 22-0690   IN RE R.H.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support termination and that termination is not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of the father’s parental rights.  We also find termination is in the child’s best interest.  We affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her nine-month-old daughter.  She contends the court terminated her rights only because of her mental-health conditions and that termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We find her contentions lack merit and affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            The father of a teenaged child appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his request to close the child-in-need-of-assistance case, as recommended by the Iowa Department of Human Services—but opposed by the mother.  The juvenile court considered the motion to close the case at the permanency hearing held in March 2022, but it denied the motion.  The father timely appeals from that order.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we do not find much has changed since our earlier decision and agree with the juvenile court that “sustaining the [permanency] goal and planning for ongoing permanency under the unique circumstances of this case requires the court’s aid,” we affirm the juvenile court’s decision. 

No. 22-0761   IN RE P.H.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to C.T. and P.H., born in 2020 and 2021 respectively.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights to both children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (h) (2022).  The mother purports to challenge both of the statutory grounds, maintains termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests, and asks for additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by May, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Michael Kim appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Archdale Funding, LLC.  Kim contends Archdale “lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because Kim did not raise the issue of standing before the district court, we will not address it on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm, but we remand for the district court to determine the reasonable amount of the appellate attorney fees to be awarded to the appellee.