2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence supports a statutory ground for termination, termination is in the best interests of the child, an application of a permissive exception is not warranted, and the department of health and human services made reasonable efforts toward reunification, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Kristal L. Phillips, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2023), we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests and an extension of time to work on reunification is unwarranted.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, claiming termination is not in the best interests of the children and the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in lieu of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his toddler daughter.  He contends the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the juvenile court that the child cannot be safely placed in the father’s custody at the present time, we affirm the termination order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman-Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A father challenges the termination of his parental rights, arguing the State failed to establish statutory grounds for termination, including claiming the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts, and contends that termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The father failed to adequately challenge one of the two statutory grounds authorizing termination and failed to make a timely reasonable-efforts challenge.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to their children.  Both contend the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination was not in the children’s best interests, the court should apply a permissive exception to preclude termination, and a six-month extension would eliminate the grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm both appeals.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, Jessica Noll, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (10 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023).  Both challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting that ground, argue termination is contrary to the child’s best interests, and ask for application of the permissive exception to termination in section 232.116(3)(c).  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm, finding the State met its burden for termination under section 232.116(1)(f), termination is in the child’s best interests, and the bond exception should not be applied to preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (13 pages)

            Two parents separately appeal termination of their parental rights.  The mother challenges the statutory ground for termination and asserts her bond with the child should preclude termination of her rights, while the father argues multiple permissive exceptions should preclude termination of his rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State met the ground for termination and no permissive exceptions apply, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her third daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: After our independent evaluation of the facts, we find the State offered clear and convincing evidence to satisfy a ground for termination.  And because the mother’s struggles with substance use, mental health, and instability prevent reunification with C.A., we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Dissent by Tabor, J.  (43 pages)

            The State charged five defendants in connection with a drive-by shooting at a Des Moines residence.  A jury found Reath Yak guilty of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, willful injury causing serious injury, and two counts of attempted murder.  On appeal, Yak argues the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions.  He also contends the district court erred in denying his challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of a Black woman from the jury under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports each of Yak’s convictions, and because our de novo review does not lead us to a different result on the Batson issue, we affirm.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the majority’s substantial-evidence analysis.  But I respectfully dissent on the Batson issue.  “Equal justice under law requires a criminal trial free of racial discrimination in the jury selection process.”  Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2242 (2019).  Yak’s trial did not meet that test.  I would find that Yak proved his Batson claim and would reverse and remand for a new trial. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Thomas J. Bice (trial) and Christopher C. Polking (posttrial motions), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (16 pages)

            On appeal, William Griffin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, contends the court erred in failing to make the proper inquiry of defense counsel and himself when defense counsel moved to withdraw and declare a mistrial, maintains the court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on him not being present at a deposition and in admitting hearsay statements in a police report.  OPINION HOLDS: There is substantial evidence supporting the convictions.  The court did not abuse its discretion in denying trial counsel’s motion to withdraw under the circumstances.  Griffin entered a written waiver of his appearance at depositions.  And the admission of hearsay was non-prejudicial.  We affirm.