February 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Ashley Sparks, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the district court’s order modifying parenting time in the divorce decree between him and his former wife, arguing the modification is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the modification is in the children’s best interests, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Charles C. Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his discretionary sentence after the revocation of his deferred judgment following a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the deferred judgment or imposing sentence.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the mother’s arguments generally thwarted by the existence of a five-year no contact order, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.  Because neither child can safely return to the father’s care and additional time was not warranted, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son.  The mother argues that (1) the State did not prove a ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and (2) termination is not in the son’s best interest.  The father argues that (1) the juvenile court should have granted a six-month extension to work towards reunification; (2) termination of his parental rights is not in the son’s best interest; (3) the parent–child bond exception applies under Iowa Code section 232.116(3); and (4) a guardianship is a better alternative for a permanency outcome.  OPINION HOLDS: On the mother’s appeal, we agree that the State proved the statutory ground for termination—especially given her testimony agreeing that the son could not yet return to her custody at the time of the termination hearing—and that termination of the mother’s rights is in the son’s best interest.  As for the father’s appeal, we see no basis to find that the son could have been placed in his custody with another six months when it was uncertain that the father would be released from prison and he agreed he would not be ready to care for the son.  And we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the son’s best interest, any parent–child bond does not warrant declining to terminate, and a guardianship is not appropriate here.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.  The father of the younger child separately appeals termination of his parental rights to the younger child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the children could not have been safely returned to the mother as of trial, an additional six months for reunification was not warranted, termination was in the children’s best interests, and the permissive bond exception is inapplicable.  The father’s claims were waived or otherwise not preserved for our review.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (15 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Although they appeal separately, they raise identical claims.  Each contests the statutory grounds for termination and contends termination of their respective parental rights is not in their children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm the termination of each parent’s rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Kristal L. Phillips, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Per Curiam.  Special concurrence by Langholz, J.  (14 pages).

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father raises several issues on appeal, but we reach the merits on only two—the statutory grounds for termination and whether termination is in the son’s best interest.  On those claims, we find clear and convincing evidence supported terminating the father’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and the son is best served by termination.  Because the father has waived or not preserved the other issues, including his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not consider their merits.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I join all the majority’s opinion except for its holding that the father waived his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.  Because this is an expedited chapter 232 appeal without normal briefing, I would hold that that the father’s argument in his petition on appeal sufficiently presented this issue for our consideration.  And seeing no other barrier to reaching the merits, I would hold that the claim fails because the father cannot show any prejudice. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request for six more months to work toward reunification, as she offered little evidence showing she could make the necessary progress to eliminate the need for removal by the end of that period.  Given the mother’s concession that, absent that extra time to make progress, the son could not be returned to her custody, termination was appropriate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  The mother has waived any best-interest challenge.  And because the mother never advocated for a permissive exception during the termination hearing, we cannot consider the issue for the first time on appeal.  We thus affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has not engaged in any services or seen the children since removal, we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds relied on by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude clear and convincing evidence exists in this record to support a ground for termination relied on by the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She claims the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, contends the strength of the parent-child bond should preclude termination, and argues that she should at least be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody, establishing a ground for termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  The parent-child bond is not healthy and should not be preserved.  And we do not grant the mother any additional time to work toward reunification.