November 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            Mackenzie Herron appeals the sentence following her guilty plea to child endangerment resulting in bodily injury.  She claims the court failed to provide reasoning for denying a deferred judgment, placed undue emphasis on the nature of the offense, and improperly considered uncharged conduct mentioned in a victim impact statement.  OPINION HOLDS: The record shows that the court considered appropriate sentencing factors and provided sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed.  Accordingly, we affirm Herron’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Dustin Hite, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (14 pages)

            Kurtis Chickering contends the district court erred by denying his petition to modify the physical care provisions of his dissolution decree, arguing that the relocation of his former wife, Ellen Chickering, constituted a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances.  He also argues that the district court miscalculated child support through improper income findings for both parties and that it improperly questioned the credibility of his testimony.  He further contends the district court erred by failing to increase his parenting time.  Ellen seeks an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s credibility determinations, determination of the parties’ income, denial of Kurtis’s petition to modify, as well as its denial of Kurtis’s request for increased visitation through his motion to enlarge.  But because Ellen did not submit an appellate attorney fee affidavit, we remand to the district court to award Ellen appellate attorney fees in an amount it deems reasonable.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey C. McDaniel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (3 pages)

            Donald Dickerson III appeals his sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver arguing that he should have received a deferred judgment rather than a suspended sentence and probation.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its considerable sentencing discretion in selecting a suspended sentence and probation rather than a deferred judgment.  We thus affirm Dickerson’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.   Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children, challenging some of the statutory grounds and arguing that she should have been given six more months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother challenges only some of the independent statutory grounds for termination relied on by the juvenile court, so we could not reverse on that basis and do not reach the merits of her argument.  After the mother had already obtained one six-month extension, we agree with the juvenile court that the need for termination will still exist after six more months.  We thus affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to all three children. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Matthew A. Schuling, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, arguing the state failed to prove grounds for termination and failed to prove termination is in the children’s best interests.  They also contend the State failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts and that the court should have granted them an extension to reunite with their children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State met its burden of proof, the parents failed to preserve their reasonable-efforts claim, and the court did not err in denying them an extension, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Judge.  AFFIRMED  ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination is in the best interests of the children.  The State met its burden to terminate the mother’s rights under the statute.  The juvenile court did not err in not invoking a permissive exception or extension of time in the mother’s case.  The father waived his challenges to the statutory grounds.  And a guardianship was not in the best interests of the children.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Ann M. Gales, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights to their three children.  The father claims (1) the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination, in part because the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification, (2) his bonds with the children should have precluded termination, and (3) the juvenile court should have given him additional time to work toward reunification.  The mother only challenges whether termination is in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination, and the father waived his reasonable-efforts challenge.  The father’s bonds with the children are not of such magnitude to warrant application of a permissive exception to forgo termination, and we do not grant him any additional time to work toward reunification.  Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.