2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            Lennox Industries, Inc. and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America appeal the district court’s ruling on judicial review, which reversed the workers’ compensation commissioner’s calculation of weekly benefits.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the commissioner erred in its initial interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.36 (2019) and the district court was correct in reversing such misapplication, we affirm the district court’s ruling on judicial review.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Ashley Beisch, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights to B.C., born in 2018, in a private termination action.  The district court granted the petition on multiple grounds, which the father challenges on appeal.  He argues he did not abandon the child or fail to financially contribute to the child without good cause.  Both the mother and the child’s guardian ad litem filed appellate briefs in support of the district court’s decision.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the father failed to financially contribute to B.C. without good cause.  Because the father does not contest best interests, we affirm without discussing the second prong.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (15 pages)

            Nicole Monson appeals the district court’s dismissal of her petition to modify the child custody provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Matthew Young, arguing the court erred in (1) excluding and refusing to consider evidence arising prior to the entry of the decree; and (2) dismissing her petition as lacking sufficient evidence of a substantial change in circumstances.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion and properly dismissed Monson’s petition. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (4 pages)

            The State requests a delayed appeal from an order terminating parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we have no authority to grant the State a delayed appeal, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie Couty, Scott Strait, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (12 pages)

            The State appeals the juvenile court’s order removing the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services as guardian.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the juvenile court abused its discretion in removing the department as guardian, we reverse and remand with instructions to reappoint the department as guardian of the child.

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

            The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to K.W., born in 2020, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (l) (2024).  The father appeals, arguing (1) the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination, in part because the reduction of visitation in the two months leading up to the termination trial constitutes a failure to make reasonable efforts to reunify; (2) the loss of his rights is not in K.W.’s best interests; (3) multiple permissive factors in section 232.116(3) preclude termination; and (4) alternatively, the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in the paternal grandmother instead of terminating his rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Patrick Mcavan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother appeals the removal, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders arising from allegations of medical child abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the statutory requirements for adjudicating the child as in need of assistance were met, and the juvenile court made the least restrictive disposition appropriate considering all the circumstances of the case. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to B.L., born in 2020, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (g), and (h) (2024).  The mother appeals, purporting to challenge two of the three statutory grounds, arguing the loss of her rights is not in B.L.’s best interests, and claiming an additional six months would remedy the need for removal.  In the alternative, the mother maintains the juvenile court should have resolved the child-in-need-of-assistance case via a bridge order transferring jurisdiction to the district court, which could then enter a custody order, thereby avoiding termination.  OPINION HOLDS: After considering the mother’s arguments and reviewing the record, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            The mother appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  She challenges each of the steps in our termination analysis and the court’s denial of her request for more time.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to the mother’s long history of using methamphetamine, we find the child could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing and termination is in the child’s best interests.  Even though the mother and child shared a close bond, and the mother had recently obtained sobriety, we agree with the juvenile court’s decision to not apply a statutory exception to termination and denial of the mother’s request for additional time. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the entry of a bridge order, arguing (1) the district court was required to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the child prior to the entry of the bridge order transferring jurisdiction from the juvenile court; and (2) the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the child to enter the bridge order.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding (1) the district court was not required to have subject-matter jurisdiction to effect the transfer of jurisdiction over the child from the juvenile court; and (2) the juvenile court continued to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the child to enter the bridge order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the adjudicatory and disposition orders in the children in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the grounds for the CINA adjudication and the children’s removal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Justin R. Wyatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four-year-old child.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s ongoing drug use, inability to demonstrate she can safely parent her child, and failure to progress beyond fully supervised visits show the child could not have been immediately returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing.  Because termination is in the child’s best interest and the mother has not shown that any impediments to termination, we affirm.