2023 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, James Drew, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Partial dissent by Greer, J.  (15 pages)

            Tyrel Jenkins appeals the district court’s dissolution decree.  He asserts the decree gives too much discretion to his ex-wife and his children to decide visitation, including placing onerous restrictions on his visitation time.  He also claims the court exceeded the allowable scope of relief by granting his ex-wife sole legal custody of the parties’ children.  And he claims the court failed to follow procedures set out in Iowa Code chapter 598 (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Tyrel failed to preserve his claims involving the procedures of chapter 598.  The court acted appropriately in granting sole legal custody.  Finally, we determine the court failed to establish a definite visitation schedule, should not have delegated decision-making regarding visitation to Jessica or the children, and improperly placed restrictions on Tyrel’s visitation time.  We eliminate the provisions that granted decision making authority about visitation to Jessica and the children and the restrictions placed on Tyrel’s visitation referencing alcohol and substance usage and testing.  We remand to the district court for the sole purpose of setting a defined visitation schedule on the existing record consistent with this opinion.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I agree with the majority that the children should not be given discretion to avoid visitation and the option for Jessica to require testing for sobriety should be removed from the decree.  But because Tyrel’s pattern of behavior could negatively impact the children, I believe the district court correctly required the condition Tyrel refrain from alcohol use and that the law allows Jessica discretion to cancel visits if the children report they feel unsafe or have observations similar to what they have already experienced over their father’s extreme intoxication.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tamra Roberts, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (14 pages)

            A mother appeals a custody decree under Iowa Code chapter 600B (2021), claiming the court should have (1) granted the parties joint legal custody as they agreed; (2) adopted the parties’ stipulated visitation schedule; and (3) placed Z.A.S. in her physical care.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the district court’s decree to place the child in the parties’ joint legal custody.  The court’s decision to place the child in the father’s physical care is affirmed, as is its in-person visitation schedule, although we modify the decree to provide for video calls with the child.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother of a child appeals an order granting the father physical care.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the physical care portion of the decree.  We remand for recalculation of child support.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (4 pages)

            Brandi Kaye Smithson appeals the sentence sending her to prison.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we do not find an abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion and because Smithson failed to identify any improper factors considered by the sentencing court or a defect in the procedure, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (3 pages)

            DeMarkus Ruckman appeals the dismissal of his postconviction-relief application, alleging (1) the victim denied his commission of a particular sex act; (2) there was no evidence “of any other sexual act”; and (3) a “rape kit came back negative.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the dismissal of Ruckman’s third postconviction-relief application on statute-of-limitations grounds.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, JJ., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (3 pages)

            Neal Hollingsworth appeals his sentence following his guilty plea.  He claims the sentencing court was required to give specific reasons for imposing the fine associated with one count and suspending the fine on another count.  OPINION HOLDS: We have already rejected the same claim because sentencing courts are not required to provide reasons for rejecting specific sentencing options.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Brian E. Buckmeier, Magistrate.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion per curiam.  (6 pages)

            The respondent appeals from a court order requiring he receive inpatient treatment and submit to injectable medications.  OPINION HOLDS: The record contains substantial evidence of dangerousness and the other elements establishing the respondent is seriously mentally impaired.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott D. Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a child born in 2021.  The mother and father (I) challenge the evidence supporting the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (II) contend the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services did not engage in reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification; and (III) argue the district court should not have terminated their parental rights based on the parent-child bond.  The mother also contends (IV) termination is not in the child’s best interests and (V) she should have been afforded additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm termination of the parents’ rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Choate Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals, challenging adjudication and removal orders.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we affirm the order adjudicating the children in need of assistance and the dispositional order confirming their continued removal from the mother’s custody.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Two fathers separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  They both contend the State failed to establish grounds for termination.  And that termination was not in the childrens’ best interests due to their close bonds.  Alternatively, they argue permanency should be deferred for six months.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State provided clear and convincing evidence that each child could not be safely placed in their father’s custody, termination is in the childrens’ best interests, and delay in permanency is unwarranted, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The mother of three children and the father of one appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Both contest the grounds for termination.  The mother argues preserving her rights was in the children’s best interests and the court should have applied the custody-of-a-relative exception to termination.  In the alternative, she requests six more months to achieve reunification.  Separately, the father advocates for a guardianship with his child’s paternal grandmother instead of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights were proved.  In the father’s case, his failure to challenge all the grounds waives the appeal issue.  We find termination was in the children’s best interests and no statutory exception applies to preserve the relationships.  More time for the mother is not warranted.  And we prioritize permanency for the father’s child and decline to create a guardianship.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be safely returned to the mother.  Termination is in the child’s best interest.