2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, John M. Wright, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals from a decree placing physical care of her child with the child’s father.  OPINION HOLDS: Given the poor communication between the parents, their different approaches to parenting, and the physical distance between their homes, we agree with the district court that joint physical care is not appropriate.  As the child must be placed in the physical care of one of the parents and the father has demonstrated a superior ability to meet the child’s needs, we affirm the district court’s decision to place the child in the father’s physical care.  We do not grant either party appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nicholas Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2023) for failing to financially support his children.  OPINION HOLDS: The father, although inconsistently employed, had sources of income that could have been used to financially support his children.  While the father believed other debts or purchases were more pressing financial priorities, the father could have provided some amount of child support and chose not to.  Thus, the mother proved the father’s rights may be terminated under section 600A.8(4).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Donna Bothwell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024), and termination serves the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Mother appeals a permanency order of the juvenile court creating a guardianship for her child.  The State argues the appeal was not from a final order.  Mother argues that the Department of Health and Human Services did not make every reasonable effort to reunite the mother with her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the underlying permanency order assigning the child’s foster parents to be guardians is a final order.  We affirm the ruling of the juvenile court creating a guardianship and agree a guardianship is in the best interest of the child. 

            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.