2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the establishment of a guardianship for his two children in this child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  He argues the juvenile court should have granted him more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Given the father’s refusal to engage in services, we do not believe the need for removal would no longer remain after an additional six months.  So we do not grant the father additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Badding, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals a permanency order, which established a guardianship with the child’s maternal aunt.  The father claims the juvenile court failed to adequately weigh his parental preference.  OPINION HOLDS: The father’s parental preference was rebutted, and it is in the child’s best interest to establish a guardianship with the maternal aunt.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: With respect to the mother, we find DHS made reasonable efforts at reunification.  As for the father, we find that the required removal timeline was satisfied, the child could not be returned to his custody, and a six-month extension was not appropriate.  Having also concluded termination was in the child’s best interests and would not be detrimental to the child, we affirm termination of each party’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He argues the State did not make reasonable efforts, the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in lieu of terminating his parental rights, and the closeness of the bond with his child overcomes the need for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The father did not preserve his reasonable-efforts challenge.  Because termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, a guardianship in lieu of termination is not an option.  And while the child is strongly bonded with the father, he has not shown this bond overcomes termination being in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The statutory ground authorizing termination was satisfied.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to termination or to establish a guardianship as an alternative to termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  MOTHER'S APPEAL AFFIRMED; FATHER'S APPEAL REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Ahlers, J.  (20 pages)

            April and Stephen appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established grounds for terminating April’s parental rights.  Termination is in L.M.’s best interests, outweighing April’s requests for termination exceptions or additional time.  As for Stephen, he agreed a ground for termination was met.  But given his substantial progress since removal, additional time for reunification is appropriate.  We affirm as to April but reverse and remand for Stephen.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the decision to affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.  As to the majority’s decision to reverse termination of the father’s parental rights and provide him with additional time for reunification, I dissent because of the father’s lack of a track record of parenting and the relevant time horizon.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (13 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to two of her children, C.M. and J.M., under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (l) (2021).  On appeal, the mother argues the juvenile court wrongly denied her motions to continue the termination trial.  Alternatively, she argues termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests and a permissive factor weighs against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The court neither abused its discretion nor violated the mother’s right to due process when it denied her motions to continue.  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother did not establish a permissive factor to prevent termination.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children, claiming the juvenile court should have granted concurrent jurisdiction so the father could pursue a bridge order.  The father also urges that the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: On these facts, a bridge order is not appropriate.  We, like the juvenile court, decline to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s denial of her motion for modification of a child-in-need-of-assistance order.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the mother has not shown that she can maintain the child’s safety or that the dispositional goal has been made or cannot be met.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that neither a six-month extension nor an exception is warranted and termination was in the child’s best interests, we affirm termination of M.B.’s parental rights with respect to her child B.T.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J., take no part.  (33 pages)

            Wendell Harrington appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2012 convictions for thefts, burglaries, and eluding.  His claims include (1) a constitutional challenge to his statutory inability to submit pro se appellate briefs following the 2019 creation of Iowa Code section 822.3A; (2) that he should have been granted a new trial following the discovery of new evidence regarding drug use by an officer involved in the identification of Harrington before his arrest; (3) that the State suppressed that evidence about the officer; (4) that he should have been allowed to introduce additional depositions and DNA evidence into the PCR record after it closed; (5) that his PCR counsel was ineffective for not seeking the DNA evidence sooner; (6) that the district court failed to rule on his pro se issues regarding suppression of evidence of another suspect; (7) that his PCR counsel was ineffective in arguing the existence of the other suspect; (8) that his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to file a deposition transcript and report regarding that DNA evidence; (9) that all of his attorneys were ineffective in not arguing that his past convictions of burglary and theft were not crimes of dishonesty and, therefore, should not have been admitted as impeachment evidence against him at the underlying criminal trial; and (10) that the PCR trial judge should have recused himself.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Harrington’s application for PCR.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Brett Jones appeals the denial of his postconviction relief application.  He contends a recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369, 2382 (2019), renders the revocation unconstitutional.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the significant differences between the statute in Haymond and the one in this case, we find Haymond inapplicable.  Accordingly, we affirm.