2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the adjudicatory and dispositional orders in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding (CINA).  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports each of the grounds for the CINA adjudication and the child’s removal from the father’s custody.  Because restricting supervised visitation will eliminate the risk of adjudicatory harm to the child while maintaining the parent-child bond and serving the child’s best interests, we reverse the portion of the dispositional order prohibiting contact between the father and child.  We remand to the juvenile court to order supervised visitation at the department of health and human service’s discretion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interests, and we do not grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to C.L., K.L., and K.L., who ranged in ages from thirteen to nine years old at the time of the termination trial, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2024).  The mother appeals, arguing the statutory grounds for termination were not proved, the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children, she should be given additional time to achieve reunification, and—because of the close bond she shares with the children—it is not in the children’s best interests to terminate her rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to C.L., K.L., and K.L.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State has shown grounds for termination exist under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024), termination is in the best interests of the child, and the application of a permissive exception to termination is unwarranted, we affirm.

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

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (13 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for three counts each of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery, challenging the district court’s denial of a motion to strike a potential juror for cause during voir dire and admission of certain autopsy photos at trial.  OPINION HOLDS:  Finding he has not proven an abuse of discretion warranting reversal on either issue, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (31 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for three counts of second-degree murder and three counts of first-degree robbery, alleging multiple errors across his three-week trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the preserved errors do not warrant reversal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erica Crisp and Becky Goettsch, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A jury found Damen Walton guilty of operating while intoxicated.  On appeal from that conviction, Walton challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and contends his motion for new trial should have been granted because the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there was probable cause to support the stop of Walton’s vehicle and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  WRIT ANULLED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS; MODIFICATION AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J. (11 pages)

            Briana Hesse challenges the district court order finding her in contempt, the sentence imposed, and the modification of visitation.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the finding of contempt, because the district court did not clearly apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof, we grant the writ in part and remand with directions to apply that burden.  We likewise annul the writ in part as to the sentence imposed but direct the district court to clarify the basis for each sentence.  As to the modification of visitation, because we find the breakdown in communication and ability to coordinate visitation constitutes a material change in circumstances, we affirm the modification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Langholz, P.J., and Bower and Carr, S.JJ., Opinion by Langholz, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Todd Landen appeals the spousal- and child-support awards of the decree dissolving his marriage with Aprel Landen, arguing that the district court’s inclusion of his veterans’ disability benefits in calculating his income violates federal law.  He also challenges the inclusion of the marital home in the property division because its value includes improvements paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs to accommodate his disability.  Aprel cross-appeals the spousal-support award arguing the court should have extended the ten-year award to continue until the death of either party or her remarriage.  OPINION HOLDS: Federal law does not prohibit including veterans’ disability benefits in the calculation of a party’s income when deciding spousal- or child-support awards.  Todd did not preserve error on his challenge to the property division. And the spousal-support award to Aprel for ten years does not fail to do equity.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion Per Curiam.  (4 pages)

            A protected party under a domestic violence protective order appeals the dismissal of his contempt application.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the dismissal of the contempt application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Margaret Reyes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  Dissent by Langholz, J. (18 pages)

            Shenandoah Medical Center (SMC) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment for failure to timely file an expert-witness designation.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm. DISSENT ASSERTS: I would follow Stanton v. Knoxville Community Hospital, Inc., No. 19-1277, 2020 WL 4498884 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020), and hold that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the Wilsons had good cause for their failure to timely file their expert certifications under Iowa Code section 668.11 because they have not shown a valid reason for their failure and the district court erroneously relied on defense counsel’s actions.  The court thus erred in denying SMC summary judgment on that ground.  And we should remand for the district court to consider whether the Wilsons’ claims fail as a matter of law without expert testimony as SMC argued in its summary-judgment motion.