January 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  Dissent by Sandy, J. (39 pages)

    A father appeals the termination-of-parental-rights order concluding he abandoned his son under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(a) (2024).  He raises two issues.  First, he argues that section 600A.8(3) is unconstitutional—both on its face and as applied—because it shifts the burden to the parent to rebut a presumption of abandonment.  Second, he contends that the child’s legal custodian did not offer clear and convincing evidence that he abandoned the child or that termination was in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On the first issue, the father did not raise a facial constitutional challenge in the district court.  Thus, we have nothing to review.  By contrast, he minimally preserved error on the as-applied challenge.  But in resolving that issue, we find no constitutional violation.  On the second issue, we give deference to the factual findings of the district court, especially on witness credibility.  After finding the father’s testimony was not entirely reliable, the court decided that the child’s legal custodian presented sufficient proof of abandonment.  The court also found that it was in the child’s best interests to be adopted.  After our de novo review of the record, we reach the same conclusions as the district court.  So, we affirm.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Lacking clear and convincing evidence that B.W. abandoned his child, I would accordingly reverse the judgment of the district court and dismiss the petition to terminate B.W.’s parental rights.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered en banc.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J. (13 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging all three steps in our statutory framework.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother continued to struggle with maintaining sobriety and the child is best served by permanency, the State met its burden to show termination is proper by clear and convincing evidence.  As for the statutory exceptions to termination, the mother’s failure to advance these arguments at the termination hearing and offer any evidence in support waives her challenge to that step on appeal. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because the error-preservation issue is not dispositive to this appeal, it is unnecessary to abrogate or overrule our unpublished cases.  And there are public policy questions that warrant scrutiny by the elected branches, so I dissent in part.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: On review, we affirm that termination is in the children’s best interests, no permissive exception precludes termination, and an additional six months’ time for reunification was not warranted.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

                A mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order and finding of reasonable efforts.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the continued removal of M.A. from the mother’s custody is in her best interests and the department made reasonable efforts towards reunification, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  She contends that the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination; termination is not in the children’s best interests; and termination, in fact, would harm them because of their close bond with her.  She also asks for six more months to reunify her family and mentions the possibility of establishing a guardianship with a relative or fictive kin.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, but deferring to the juvenile court’s credibility findings, we affirm the termination order.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  Both claim the district court erred in concluding the child could not safely be returned to their custody and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  The mother further contends her bond with the child should preclude termination, the court should have granted her additional time to work toward reunification, and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parents’ parental rights.

            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 Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father did not establish the need for removal would no longer exist within six months, so an extension was not warranted.  The State proved a ground for termination and that it was in the child’s best interests, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Elizabeth Batey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the statutory grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the child’s best interests, and argues we should apply a permissive exception to termination and instead establish a guardianship for the child.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established that the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing, establishing a statutory ground for termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  The mother did not meet her burden to prove a permissive exception to termination, and a guardianship is not a viable option in this instance. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (12 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing (1) the statutory ground for termination cannot apply since the son was not removed from his mother’s custody; (2) the State failed to meet its extra requirement for termination under the Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act; and (3) termination is not in the son’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: The ground for termination, Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024), does not require the son to be removed from the custody of both parents.  Ample evidence in the record, including a qualified expert representing the Osage Nation, shows beyond a reasonable doubt that failing to terminate would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the son.  And termination of the father’s parental rights is in the son’s best interest.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the judgment but, for the reasons expressed in my partial dissent in In re J.R., I dissent from the majority's reliance on that decision to find error was preserved on an issue that was not challenged below.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her son.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding (1) the mother waived any challenge to the ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), and (2) termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudicating her daughter in need of assistance and continuing the daughter’s removal from her custody.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports adjudicating the daughter in need of assistance.  As for removal, the mother’s appeal from the initial ex parte removal is now moot.  And after the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court appropriately extended the daughter’s removal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing the district court was incorrect when the court found a statutory basis for termination and found termination was in the best interest of the child.  He argues the parent-child bond provides an exception to the termination of parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the father cannot provide a safe and stable home for the child and the termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of parental rights.  The parent-child bond does not overcome this finding.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the judgment but, for the reasons expressed in my partial dissent in In re J.R., I dissent from the majority’s reliance on that decision’s approach to error preservation.