2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Michael Hooper, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages).

            Robert Edgerton appeals a ruling modifying the joint physical care provision of the stipulated decree dissolving his marriage, challenging the standard employed by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court applied the correct standard and considered appropriate factors in deciding which parent should have physical care.  After doing the same on our de novo review of the record, we affirm the modification ruling placing the children in the mother’s physical care.  We remand for the district court to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Jessica Edgerton. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to ongoing concerns about the parents’ mental health and substance abuse, we find the State proved a statutory ground for termination, and we reject their requests for an additional six months for reunification.  We also reject the father’s statutory and constitutional objections to holding concurrent permanency and termination proceedings, find no abuse of discretion in denying the father’s motion to reopen the record, and conclude reasonable efforts were made to avoid out-of-home placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and seeks additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject both claims on our de novo review of the record and affirm the termination order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (4 pages)

            Ian Leib appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief, contending trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain the certified K-9 officer’s training records and filing a motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: The K-9 officer was a certified drug dog and is thus presumed reliable.  Leib presented no evidence to rebut the dog’s reliability.  Consequently, trial counsel breached no duty in not filing a motion to suppress.  Leib’s ineffective-assistance claim fails, and the court did not err in dismissing the application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals a permanency order placing sole custody of her child with the father.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence to show the child cannot be safely returned to the mother’s care.  Also, an extension of six months is not appropriate because it is unlikely the need for removal would no longer exist at the end of the six-month period.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her four children as in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2), (n), and (o) (2021), as well as continued removal following disposition.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the evidence sufficient to support each of the statutory grounds for adjudication cited by the juvenile court and affirm the order for continued removal following disposition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues termination was not in the children’s best interests and the court should have instead established guardianships for the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination—not the establishment of guardianships—was in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Frideres-Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: The record supports that the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing and termination is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott D. Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (8 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her twin children.  She claims the juvenile court erred in finding that the children, who were over four years of age and had been adjudicated in need of assistance, could not be returned to her physical custody.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon de novo review, we find the record of the mother’s methamphetamine addiction, relapse after two drug treatments, unknown whereabouts for five months before the termination hearing, and failure to attend the termination hearing, supports termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2021), does not support her claim that termination is not in the best interest of the children, and does not warrant an extension to reunify her with the children.  So we affirm the termination. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds for termination.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  And the mother is not entitled to additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the grounds for termination have been established, an extension is not warranted, and termination is in the best interests of the child.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee County, Daniel P. Kitchen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (12 pages)

            A father argues that termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive disposition, that the State did not provide reasonable efforts, and that he should have been granted a six-month extension.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is not bound by the least-restrictive disposition.  As the father failed to point to specific services he was not provided nor changes he believed he could make with an additional six months, we affirm.