October 2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the physical care provisions of a bridge order.  OPINION HOLDS: Placing physical-care with the mother is in the children’s best interests, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the majority of the mother’s claims were waived, and the mother’s lack of progress towards reunification was unrelated to the asserted lack of reasonable efforts by the State.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to three children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother was unable to take immediate custody of the children as of the termination trial, did not preserve her additional-time request, and her bond with the children does not preclude termination, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The children could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody.  We reject the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to termination or to grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal termination of their parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of parental rights to be in the children’s best interests and the children could not return to either parent’s care at the time of trial.  Error was not preserved on the mother’s reasonable-efforts claim.  We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Ashley Beisch, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the father of L.C. (born in 2013) and W.C. (born in 2019) and the rights of L.C.’s mother.  The father argues the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the termination petition because the appeal of his convictions was not yet completed; the court was wrong to terminate his parental rights because, if the court waited until he was successful on his criminal appeal, the adjudicatory ground would not persist and the statutory grounds for termination would not be met; and, in the alternative, that the juvenile court should have exercised one of the permissive exceptions and established a guardianship in the children’s paternal grandfather in lieu of terminating the father’s parental rights.  The mother of L.C. challenges the statutory grounds for termination, claims the loss of her rights is not in L.C.’s best interests, and maintains the court should have concluded the close bond between the mother and L.C. precludes termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Following our de novo review, we affirm the termination of each parent’s rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her five children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024).  A father separately appeals the termination of his rights to the youngest child—both parties’ son.  The mother and father each argue that the State did not prove a ground for termination.  The mother also argues that guardianship was not properly considered as an alternative permanency option.  And the father argues that termination was not in the best interest of his son.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the mother and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) because both parents failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the children.  Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the son’s best interest given the father’s failure to obtain substance-use or mental-health treatment, the need for permanency in the son’s life, and the son’s positive foster-home environment.  And guardianship is not a viable option here, especially since the mother did not propose any concrete plan for guardianship. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds supporting termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established that 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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (I) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s order, finding the grounds for termination have been met, the termination is in the child’s best interest, and no exception to termination applies.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Ackley, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            David John Lehmann appeals both his conviction and sentence for lascivious acts with a child, alleging multiple improper evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, constitutional violations, verdict inconsistency, and an abuse of sentencing discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court abused its discretion by admitting prior‑bad‑acts evidence and Lehmann’s constitutional right to be present was violated, we reverse and remand consistent with this opinion without considering the merits of his other arguments.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Langholz, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Douglas Kelley—the executor of a trust beneficiary’s estate—appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the estate’s claim that the trustee, Savings Bank Primghar, negligently breached its fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.  OPINION HOLDS:  The bank did not violate any duty owed to the beneficiary as trustee under Iowa law.  Because the beneficiary was provided a copy of the trust’s terms as required by the Iowa Trust Code and he never asked for any more information from the bank, it complied with all its duties under Iowa law.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert and Scott D. Rosenberg, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (17 pages)

Michael Klein appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to defendants, dismissing three of his claims, and appeals the district court’s denial of his partial new trial motion.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we no longer recognize standalone causes of action for constitutional tort violations under article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Klein’s constitutional claims.  The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Klein supports the district court’s ruling on Klein’s false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery claims.  We conclude the district court did not err in denying a new trial based on the evidentiary grounds raised.  And as the attorney-misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal, we do not reach the merits of such claim.