2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Kristopher Keppy appeals the district court’s denial of his application to modify the physical-care and child-support provisions of a custody-and-support order under Iowa Code chapter 600B (2022) and its refusal to hold the children’s mother, Jennifer West, in contempt for alleged violations of that order.  OPINION HOLDS: Keppy has not preserved error on his challenges to the district court’s refusal to hold West in contempt or its denial of his request to modify the physical-care placement of the children because—as he concedes—the district court did not rule on the errors he now raises and he did not ask the court to expand its ruling to address them under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904.  We defer to the court’s finding that his reduction in income is self-inflicted and cannot support modification of his child-support obligation.  And we award West some of her appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Thomas Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            Donroy Merrival Jr. appeals his sentences following his guilty pleas.  Merrival argues the district court abused its discretion when sentencing him to incarceration instead of probation because the court used boilerplate language and only considered the nature of the offense.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm the sentences imposed by the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jessica Noll, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (12 pages)

            R.K. appeals two involuntary‑commitment orders under Iowa Code chapters 125 and 229 (2023), challenging sufficiency of the evidence.  She also contends that she received ineffective assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: Because sufficient evidence supports the finding and R.K. did not receive ineffective assistance, we affirm R.K.’s commitment under section 229.1(22).  But we reverse R.K.’s commitment under section 125.2(16) and remand for dismissal of that application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan Greiner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 600A.8 (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: Because we conclude the mother proved the statutory ground of abandonment, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A patient appeals orders for civil commitment based on her mental health and substance-use disorder.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the patient’s failure to present a proper record on appeal precludes our review of the sufficiency of the evidence, and we find she is owed no relief on her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we affirm. 

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

            A father appeals from a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: The father presents no argument from which we may find reversible error.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Donna Bothwell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            The mother of three children and the father of the youngest appeal the termination of their parental rights, raising five claims: (1) The juvenile court abused its discretion by denying their motions to continue the termination hearings.  (2) The court erred in denying their request for a different judge.  (3) The State failed to prove a ground for termination.  (4) Termination was not in the children’s best interests.  (5) Exceptions preclude the need for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no merit in those five claims, we affirm the termination order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul J. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old child.  She contends the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination and failed to make reasonable efforts in her case.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no merit in either claim, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals a juvenile dispositional order removing her children from her care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because her argument lacks citation to any supporting legal authority, we summarily affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (11 pages)

            The parents of four children individually appeal the termination of their parental rights.  The father argues that the State failed to prove a ground for termination and that termination was not in the children’s best interests, and he asks for six additional months to work toward reunification.  The mother claims that the State hindered reunification and that without its recommendation, the court could not find the children could be returned.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the children’s best interests for the court to terminate.  We also refuse the father’s request for six more months.  Lastly, we find the mother both failed to preserve and waived her argument on appeal.  Thus, we affirm on both appeals.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a child.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence showing the grounds for termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024), and there is no basis for granting the mother additional time.  Clear and convincing evidence shows termination is in the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination apply. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            The father challenges the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination is in the child’s best interests due to the father’s inability to look after her safety and need for a permanent home, the strength of the bond between the father and the child does not overcome the detriment of declining termination, the need for removal—the father’s substance use and mental health challenges—will likely still exist in six months, and a guardianship is not in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.