September 2023 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, John R. Flynn, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A defendant appeals the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Properly treating the notice of appeal as an application for discretionary review, we find the application untimely and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            Joseph Cruz Cordero appeals his sentence for sexual abuse in the third degree.  He argues the court abused its discretion in determining his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Chris Foy, Judge.  RULING VACATED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Jesse Cickavage appeals the district court order confirming the award of appellate attorney fees to Sara Jarvis.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order, we vacate its ruling.  Our previous decisions still stand.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            Dawn Marie Shafer appeals from a ruling placing physical care of a child with the father, Kevin William Higdon; ordering visitation provisions; and assessing child support.  Higdon cross-appeals challenging the ruling on joint legal custody.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm on appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the district court’s physical care, legal custody, and child-support assessment provisions were justified.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

Timothy Wedemeyer appeals the order modifying his divorce decree, which grants physical care and a modified child support award to Alicia Wedemeyer.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we hold that joint physical care is not in the best interests of the children, we affirm the modification of the dissolution decree and the increase in child support.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother waived her challenge to the statutory grounds for termination, termination is in the best interests of the child, placing the child in the custody of his other parent does not preclude termination, and the mother waived her reasonable-efforts challenge.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination was not in the child’s best interests, and the department failed to provide reasonable efforts.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights to O.L. (born in 2021) and A.L. (born in 2020).  The mother argues the court should have given her an additional six months to work toward reunification and that termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests.  The father challenges whether (1) the State proved the statutory ground for termination, (2  the loss of his rights is in the children’s best interests, and (3) a permissive factor should have been applied to save the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: As for the mother’s appeal, we conclude delaying permanency is not warranted and termination of the mother’s rights is in the children’s best interests.  Regarding the father, the State proved the statutory ground for termination and, because termination is in the children’s best interests, a guardianship with the paternal great-grandmother is not appropriate.  We affirm the termination of each parent’s rights.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (10 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, contending the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification and it is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  The mother argues the juvenile court should have applied the higher burden of proof under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and challenges two of the three statutory grounds authorizing termination of her rights.  The father challenges the statutory grounds authorizing termination, including reasonable efforts; whether termination is in the child’s best interests; and points to the parent-child bond as a basis to not terminate.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the mother’s claims, ICWA does not apply to this case because the child does not meet the definition of an “Indian child,” and we affirm under the unchallenged statutory ground authorizing termination.  As to the father’s claims, the child could not be safely returned to the father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a statutory ground for termination.  The father waived any reasonable-efforts challenge.  Termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best interests, and the father did not establish a bond with the child strong enough to preclude termination.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the statutory grounds, claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and contends termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination because the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.  The mother waived her reasonable-efforts claim, and termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Monty W. Franklin, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (14 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her three children; the father appeals the termination of parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding any argument on the statutory grounds for termination was waived, it is not in the best interests of the children to return them to the parents’ custody, and the requirements for a six-month extension, guardianship, or the permissive exception are not met, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s rights as to all three children and the father’s rights as to his child.