July 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Joseph McCarville, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and requesting additional time for reunification efforts.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A parent appeals the continued removal of a child from the home.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Monty Franklin and Jordan Brackey, Judges.  AFFIRMED ON THE FATHER’S APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON THE MOTHER’S APPEAL.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Special concurrence by Greer, P.J.  (21 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights, finding that the statutory grounds for termination were met, termination was in the children’s best interests, the parent-child bond did not outweigh the safety concerns supporting termination, and the father was not entitled to additional time for reunification.  On the mother’s appeal, we find the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the mother’s motion for a new termination hearing and to reopen the record after the death of the juvenile court judge who presided over the hearing and appointment of a successor judge under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1802(2).  We reverse the ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights and remand with instructions to grant her motion for a new termination hearing and to reopen the record.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the result and reasoning of the majority opinion; I write separately to highlight the extreme physical distance between the mother and the children’s four placements and its impact on the reunification process.   As this case illustrates, the current system—with the growing foster home shortage and the limitations on resources—is not child-centered in its application. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother challenges the juvenile court order adjudicating her sixteen-year-old daughter as a child in need of assistance (CINA).  She contends the State failed to offer clear and convincing evidence supporting the statutory grounds for adjudication.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s adjudication order, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark Schlenker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (8 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to D.A., born in 2022, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (h) (2024).  The mother appeals, asserting (1) she should have been given additional time to work toward reunification; (2) the juvenile court should have denied the termination petition and instead reinstated the bridge order that was entered to close the family’s previous child-welfare care; (3) the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child; and (4) the State did not prove the statutory ground for termination pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, challenging the statutory grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and asking us to apply permissive exceptions to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds authorizing termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be returned to the mother’s custody due to the mother’s longstanding and unresolved methamphetamine use, establishing a statutory ground for termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Ashley West-Joons, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding sufficient evidence supports the ground for termination and rejecting the parents’ other challenges, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination in the best interests of the child and her reasonable‑efforts challenge is waived, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children.  The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Patrick McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights to her daughter based on the juvenile court’s best interest determination.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to the mother’s unresolved substance use and minimal participation in services, we find that termination is in the child’s best interest and affirm the juvenile court’s ruling. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that (1) the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination, (2) a permissive exception should apply due to the closeness of her relationship with the child, and (3) the juvenile court erred in denying her request for additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Although the mother consistently participated in supervised visitation during the three months leading to the termination hearing, she failed to make meaningful progress in addressing her longstanding issues with methamphetamine use.  In addition to her unresolved substance-use problem, the mother also failed to adequately address issues related to her mental health, lack of stable housing, lack of employment, and domestic violence in her home.  As such the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody, establishing a statutory ground for termination.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination and do not grant the mother any additional time to work towards reunification.