March 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Michelle Jungers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending that a six‑month extension should have been granted.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that a six‑month extension is not warranted, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument En Banc.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  The mother challenges the statutory ground authorizing termination and argues that the juvenile court should have established a guardianship rather than terminating her parental rights.  The father argues that termination of his parental rights is not in the child’s best interests and he should be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground to terminate the mother’s parental rights because the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody.  The mother did not preserve her guardianship argument because it was never raised before the juvenile court.  We disavow our prior cases that state the parent-child bond is not relevant to the best-interests analysis and conclude that the parent-child bond is a relevant consideration when determining what course of action is in the child’s best interests.  However, we conclude termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We do not grant the father any additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the adjudicatory and dispositional orders in the child‑in‑need‑of‑assistance proceeding for his child, M.D.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence to adjudicate M.D. as a child in need of assistance, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing that termination is not in the son’s best interest and the bond exception should preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The father was incarcerated for the first fifteen months of the son’s life.  The father’s refusal to continue participation in supervised visits, lack of any substance-use treatment, and regular use of marijuana since his release all show that the father cannot safely care for the son.  And while the father has some bond with the son, the son is also very much bonded with his cousin, who has cared for him since birth. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            The State appeals from the juvenile court’s order placing guardianship of the child with her foster parents, arguing: (1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to decide guardianship and custody issues due to a pending certiorari action before our court; (2) the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the child’s guardian and by applying other provisions of Iowa Code chapter 232 (2023) in appointing a guardian; and (3) public policy requires that courts strictly adhere to section 232.117(3).  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court had jurisdiction to decide the guardianship issue but should have placed guardianship with HHS.  We modify the juvenile court’s guardianship order to place guardianship of the child with HHS and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.  Because the State has prevailed in its primary argument, we decline to address its alternative public policy argument.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Based on the applicable statutes as they are written, I agree with the result reached by the majority.  But I write separately to highlight the concern I have with the current process, which requires harm to befall the child before the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services can be removed as guardian. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights, as termination is in the best interests of the child, the application of a permissive exception is unwarranted, and the establishment of a guardianship in lieu of termination is not an appropriate permanency option for the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s ruling terminating her parental rights to her minor son.  On appeal, the mother asserts only that the juvenile court erred by denying her request for an extension of time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary Hindman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Michael Lang appeals the summary dismissal of his ninth application for postconviction relief (PCR) after a jury found him guilty of first-degree kidnapping in 1988.  Lang’s sole argument on appeal is that because he raised a freestanding claim of actual innocence, the three-year statute of limitations does not apply to his application.  OPINION HOLDS: Because he failed to set forth any new ground of fact that could not have been discovered during the three-year window to file a timely PCR application, no exception applies.  The summary dismissal of Lang’s application was appropriate; we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (6 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his sentence for first-degree theft, assault causing bodily injury, and possession of a controlled substance.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not consider any unproven offenses when crafting the defendant’s sentence, nor did it abuse its discretion when imposing incarceration rather than probation, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (18 pages)

            Kathryn Jondle appeals from a split verdict in an undue-influence action challenging her mother’s will, trust, and inter vivos land transfer.  Jondle contends the district court erred when instructing the jury on the burden of proof applicable to her trust contest.  Margaret Gillespie cross-appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s findings on Jondle’s successful claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the trust amendment at issue in Jondle’s appeal was of a testamentary nature, we conclude the district court did not err in rejecting the requested burden-shifting instruction.  As for Gillespie’s sufficiency challenge, we find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.  We therefore affirm on appeal and cross appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J. (23 pages)

            Thomas Jesse appeals his forty convictions for second-degree sexual abuse, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.  He argues that the warrantless search of his room in his parents’ house and the warrantless seizure of his laptop found in that room violated the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.  He also argues that the warrants to continue to seize the laptop and search its electronic contents did not satisfy the particularity requirement of those constitutional provisions.  And he argues that the warrant authorizing the search of the entire residence lacks probable cause after excising the evidence obtained by these constitutional violations.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that Jesse’s state and federal constitutional rights were not violated.  The deputy’s warrantless search of Jesse’s bedroom was reasonable because his mother consented to it.  The short seizure of the laptop was also reasonable because it was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances.  The two warrants sufficiently described the laptop to satisfy the particularity requirement even though they contained typos in the laptop’s serial number.  And because Jesse’s challenge to the final warrant rests on the contrary assumptions that the search and seizure of the laptop were illegal, it fails too.  We thus affirm Jesse’s conviction.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (9 pages)

    A jury convicted Matthew Buford of two counts of first-degree murder and flight to avoid prosecution.  Buford challenges the district court’s admission of out-of-court statements by one of the victims over his hearsay objection.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding any hearsay violation harmless, we affirm Buford’s convictions.