December 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging each of the three steps in our termination analysis.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the State proved a statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interests.  We also conclude that the father failed to prove that a permissive exception should be applied.  We accordingly affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals a permanency review order.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father did not contest the child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication, we do not address his challenge to the adjudication on appeal.  The father’s remaining claim is waived.  We affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON ALL THREE APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and the fathers of two children separately appeal termination of their parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the children could not have been safely returned to the mother or the father who challenged statutory grounds; the State provided reasonable efforts; termination was in the children’s best interests; the permissive bond exception was not in their best interests; and the juvenile’s court exclusion of some expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father appeal from a juvenile court’s dispositional review order denying their motion for reasonable efforts, in which they asked the court to remove the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services’ case manager and supervisor and to order the department to develop a plan to reinstate contact with their two removed children.  OPINION HOLDS: Although we do not reach the merits of the juvenile court’s refusal to interfere with the department’s staffing decisions, we reverse its reasonable-efforts ruling.  The juvenile court made no finding that visitation would be detrimental to the children and therefore should have granted the parents’ motion for reasonable efforts to create a plan for family interactions.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an order requiring the department to develop a plan for family contact, absent a finding that Iowa Code section 232.102A(2) (2024) bars such interactions.  We affirm the rest of the court’s dispositional review order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, and the father to one child separately appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Neither parent has shown that their respective children could be safely returned to their custody.  We affirm termination of their rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because she has not shown that she can be a safe, sober parent, and because she will not likely achieve that within six months, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, C.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Nothing in the record supports finding that the children could be safely returned to the mother’s custody if she is allowed more time to prove herself.  Nor does the record show that terminating the mother’s parental rights will be detrimental to the children based on the closeness of the parent-child bond.  Because clear and convincing evidence shows the children’s best interests are served by terminating the mother’s parental rights, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  On appeal, the mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the children’s best interests, and argues a permissive exception should be applied.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

          A defendant appeals his convictions for three counts of attempted murder and two counts of willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State offered ample proof that Alcorn aided and abetted Rebecca and Robert Lyons in shooting at three victims, we find the court properly instructed the jury and substantial evidence supported the verdicts.  We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s sentencing decision.  We do not reach the merits of his evidentiary issue.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (10 pages)

          A defendant appeals her convictions for three counts of attempted murder and two counts of assault with intent to inflict serious injury.  She challenges the aiding-and-abetting jury instructions and contends the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the state presented substantial evidence that she aided and abetted, and because she did not preserve error on her weight-of-the-evidence claim, we affirm.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (13 pages)

          A defendant appeals his convictions for three counts of attempted murder and two counts of willful injury causing serious injury.  He contends the district court erred in rejecting his justification defense and finding he aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes.  He also argues the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record shows substantial evidence that he acted without justification and aided and abetted, and because he failed to preserve error on his weight-of-the-evidence claim, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Christopher Abram appeals his conviction for willful injury causing serious injury and possession of a firearm as a felon.  Abram contends the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial on the basis that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.  He additionally argues the district court abused its discretion in admitting a challenged exhibit for lack of sufficient foundation and in denying his motion to strike a juror for cause.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err or abuse its discretion, and Abram did not preserve error on his evidentiary challenge, we affirm.