2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating both parents’ rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(h) (2023), termination is in the child’s best interests, no statutory exception raised is supported by the record, and additional time is unwarranted.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, William Price, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024), and termination is in the child’s best interests.  The mother has not shown that termination will harm the child based on the closeness of the parent-child bond, and delaying permanency would not change the result of the proceedings.  II. Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the father’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) and providing the father with the services he now complains about on appeal would not have affected the finding that the child could not be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing.

            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 Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116.  She argues we should exercise jurisdiction over this appeal despite her original notice of appeal being filed in the wrong case and the proper notice being filed late.  On the merits, she contends that the statutory exception under Iowa Code section 232.116(3) should have precluded termination because a relative has custody of her daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: We have appellate jurisdiction because this is a proper delayed appeal.  The mother intended to timely appeal, she was blameless for counsel’s filing misstep, and the delayed filing of the proper notice did not delay the rest of the appellate process.  On the merits, we agree with the district court that the permissive statutory exception is not a basis here to deny termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Erica Crisp, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a three-year-old daughter, arguing the termination was not in her best interests and the court should have created a guardianship with the child’s aunt.  OPINION HOLDS: The aunt lives out of state, her Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children home study expired, and she has not seen the child in person since the case’s inception.  So, this is not a case where a guardianship would be appropriate.  In addition, the father has unresolved domestic-violence and substance-use issues.  Thus, the termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Joseph McCarville, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to Z.H., born in November 2022, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (g), (h), (k), and (l) (2023).  The mother appeals, arguing (1) the juvenile court erred by failing to file a permanency order or make a ruling as to whether she should get additional time for reunification under section 232.104(2)(b); (2) “[t]he court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that the child[] could not be returned under Iowa Code [section] 232.116”; (3) the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts; (4) the court was wrong to find termination was appropriate under section 232.116(2) and (3) because the guardian ad litem failed to fulfill the duties required by section 232.2(25)(b).  OPINION HOLDS: Following our de novo review of the record, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, arguing that they should be given more time for reunification and that termination is not in the son’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that there is clear and convincing evidence that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the son’s best interest.  Because neither parent asked for more time for reunification in the juvenile court, they did not preserve error on that issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (3 pages)

            The mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order in these child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings, claiming the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children and the juvenile court should have concluded the CINA proceedings have served their purpose and close the cases.  OPINION HOLDS: Because these claims are contrary to the stance the mother took at the dispositional review hearing, she waived her right to challenge these rulings.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the district court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (16 pages)

            Dr. Joy Trueblood appeals the summary judgment ruling dismissing her tort claims against her insurance carrier, MMIC Insurance, Inc., under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because the same claims were previously dismissed in a Minnesota state court proceeding.  MMIC cross-appeals the denial of its requests for sanctions against Trueblood for filing a frivolous suit for an improper purpose.  OPINION HOLDS: The Minnesota judgment is a final decision on the merits reached after Trueblood had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims.  The Full Faith and Credit Clause thus demands that we give our sister state’s judgment preclusive effect, foreclosing Trueblood’s second try at suing MMIC.  Even so, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declining to sanction Trueblood for filing this suit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Michael Hooper, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Chad Bennett appeals the dismissal of his action for failing to timely serve the defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Bennett did not show good cause for the delayed service and the court properly determined directing an alternate manner of service was unwarranted, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson and Roger L. Sailer, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (24 pages)

            A jury found Dwight Evans guilty of first-degree murder and going armed with intent following the shooting death of Martez Harrison.  Evans, who was seventeen at the time of the shooting, was later sentenced to life imprisonment with the eligibility for parole after twenty years.  On appeal, he argues (1) the district court erred in admitting the recording of a jail phone call as non-hearsay by co-conspirators because there was insufficient evidence that Evans was engaged in a conspiracy with them, (2) neither of his convictions is supported by substantial evidence, and (3) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a mandatory minimum of twenty years before he becomes eligible for parole.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting a recorded jail phone call that contained the conversation of Evans’s co-conspirators and substantial evidence supports each of his convictions, we affirm Evans’s convictions.  And because the court neither considered inappropriate information nor abused its discretion in weighing the various factors allowed to be considered, we affirm Evans’s sentences. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            Farmers claim a waiver contained in a restructuring agreement with their former financial lender is not enforceable because they entered into the agreement under economic duress.  OPINION HOLDS: The record does not establish a fact question as to whether the farmers involuntarily accepted the terms of the restructuring agreement.  As a result, the farmers cannot claim economic duress to avoid application of the waiver provision contained in the agreement.