2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tamra Roberts, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals a modification order, which altered a physical care award and established a child support obligation.  As the mother’s appellate brief fails to materially comply with the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure, we do not reach the merits of the appeal.  Opinion holds:  We affirm without further opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (8 pages)

            In a chapter 600A private termination action, the father challenges the district court ruling granting the mother’s petition to terminate his parental rights.  The father, who is incarcerated in federal prison in Mississippi and does not expect to be released until 2028, argues the court was wrong to conclude he abandoned his child under section 600A.8(3)(b)(2).  He also argues termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the father abandoned his child under section 600A.8(3)(b)(2) and it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the father’s parental rights, we affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Gamble, S.J. Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (15 pages)

            A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the statutory grounds for termination and claims termination is not in the children’s best interests.  The father additionally asserts ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal, we affirm the termination of the father’s rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the district court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing the termination was not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: We hold that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest and thus affirm the district court ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother waived the issues on appeal by failing to appear personally or contest the termination of her rights.  Even if not waived, we find the statutory grounds for termination have been met and termination is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother challenges the removal of her infant son, his adjudication as a child in need of assistance, and the juvenile court’s dispositional order continuing his placement outside her home.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s claims about the initial removal are moot.  As for the adjudication and disposition, clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s findings.   So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A parent appeals the denial of an extension of time to delay termination and achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the parent will be unable to safely resume care of the children in six months, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Clear and convincing evidence supports terminating the mother’s parental rights to A.W. under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  II. Because J.W. was four years old at the time of the termination hearing, he does not meet the requirements for terminating the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h).  The record does not show that the mother failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with J.W to satisfy the requirements for terminating under section 232.116(1)(e).  We vacate the portion of the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to J.W. and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Barrett Bell appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Elena Bell, alleging district court misconduct and arguing the district court failed to make an equitable property distribution.  Elena Bell cross-appeals, also challenging the property division.  Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We hold that Barrett Bell did not preserve error on the question of judicial misconduct and that the district court’s distribution of property was equitable.  But we modify the decree to clarify that Barrett’s ordered payment to Elena is the full extent of his responsibility for her debts and any remaining balance on the Discover credit card remains assigned to Elena.  And we deny both parties’ requests for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Justin Wyatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Michelle Evans appeals her convictions and sentences after pleading guilty to four counts of animal neglect with injury.  Evans contends her pleas were not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not inform her of the maximum possible punishment she faced.  She also contends the court abused its sentencing discretion by imposing sentences of incarceration.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Evans makes no claim that she would not have pleaded guilty if she had been informed that the court could impose consecutive sentences and the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Randy V. Hefner, Judge.  WRIT SUSTAINED, DISTRICT COURT ORDER VACATED, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (10 pages)

            The State Public Defender filed a petition for writ of certiorari concerning the district court’s assignment of a portion of the cost of a competency evaluation.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court lacked authority to assign a portion of the cost of the competency evaluation ordered by the court sua sponte to the State Public Defender.  We reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean McPartland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (24 pages)

            A criminal appeals his conviction for murder in the second degree, arguing he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and alternatively, insufficient evidence supports the jury finding his stabbing of his girlfriend was the cause of her death rather than a methamphetamine overdose.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s determination the defendant did not prove the elements of the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence and conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s finding of cause of death.  We affirm.