2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, N.W.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is in N.W.’s best interest, and we decline to apply any permissive exceptions to termination.  So we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew J. Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to three children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for terminating parental rights.  Additional visitation would not have impacted the State’s burden of proving the children cannot be returned to either parent’s care, and we cannot find the need for removal will no longer exist if the parents are granted six more months to attempt to remedy their deficiencies.  Because the children’s best interests require termination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her child as a child in need of assistance under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (p) (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm the child’s adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n).  But we reverse the adjudication under section 232.2(6)(p).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State established grounds for termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, and no exception to termination applies.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  Dissent by Tabor, J.  (10 pages)

            An intervenor in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding appeals the juvenile court’s decision to not bifurcate the guardian ad litem and child attorney roles and to not modify placement of the child to place the child in the intervenor’s care.  She also makes an evidentiary challenge.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it decided to not bifurcate.  Because modification of placement would require modification of the dispositional order, only those authorized by statute to seek modification may seek modification of placement.  The intervenor is not statutorily authorized to do so.  The juvenile court should have admitted certain hearsay evidence.  But because the evidence was ultimately admitted through other testimony, no prejudice resulted.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because I believe J.V. needed a separate attorney to advocate for his placement preference, the court should have bifurcated the roles and appointed an attorney. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children.  She alleges the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination, termination is not in the best interests of the children, and the court should have applied a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and termination of both parents’ rights is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  FATHER’S APPEAL DISMISSED; AFFIRMED ON MOTHER’S APPEAL.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J. and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (10 pages)

            The father and the mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: With no facts beyond the mere speculation of the father’s attorney to explain the father’s late-filed notice of appeal, the father’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.  Due to the mother’s ongoing substance abuse, termination is in the child’s best interests, the parent-child bond does not overcome termination, and additional time for reunification is not appropriate.  The mother did not preserve her other issues for appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            A father and a mother appeal the termination of their parental rights.  In his appeal, the father asserts the DHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  The mother, in contrast, argues that termination was not in her children’s best interests, and that guardianship is the preferable alternative.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father did not request specific assistance, we affirm.  Likewise, the termination is in the children’s best interests and better serves their needs for stability and permanency.  So we affirm on the mother’s appeal as well.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The father filed his notice of appeal three days late.  I disagree with the majority that a three-day delay is negligible in most circumstances.  However, because the father filed his notice when the clerk’s office was closed due to a holiday and unable to process filings until reopening, I would conclude the unique circumstances here make the delay negligible.  I otherwise join in the majority opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the removal of two children from his care following a dispositional review hearing in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for modifying the dispositional order under Iowa Code section 232.103(4)(c) (2021).  Because the father refuses to cooperate with the department of human services or to participate in the services offered to him, removal is necessary to ensure the children’s safety. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court and termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            J.A. is a seven-year-old child with severe asthma.  Following his parents’ unilateral decision to reduce his daily medicine, J.A. suffered a near-fatal asthma attack in June 2021.  This led to J.A.’s intubation and hospitalization, and the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family.  Until court ordered, the parents resisted working with DHS or providing signed releases for J.A.’s medical information.  Under these circumstances, the court adjudicated J.A. a child in need of assistance (CINA) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (e) (2021).  The father appeals each of the adjudicatory grounds.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the adjudication of J.A. as a CINA under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), (c)(2) and (e).  We reverse the adjudication under section Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(1).