2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, David W. Brooks, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the private termination of her parental rights to her son, arguing that termination is not in the son’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree that the father proved the son is best served by termination.  At the time of the hearing, the mother was incarcerated on two felony charges in Illinois, with no release date on the horizon.  What’s more, the mother offered only vague justifications for her years of disinterest in the son before her incarceration.  In the meantime, the son—now seven years old—has bonded with his stepmother and wishes for her to adopt him.  The son desires, and is entitled to, stability and permanency with his father and stepmother.  We thus affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interests, and an extension of time is not warranted.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be safely returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying the statutory basis for termination.  We also find that the child’s best interests favor permanency outside the mother’s custody and that the record does not support a six-month extension in lieu of termination.  Accordingly, we affirm termination of parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (24 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court order terminating their respective parental rights to their two minor children.  Although the mother and father appeal separately, they make identical arguments on appeal.  The mother and father contend that (1) several permissive exceptions to termination should have been applied; (2) an extension of time to work towards reunification should have been granted; (3) placing the children under the guardianship of their paternal grandparents was more appropriate than termination; and (4) the juvenile court erred by not bifurcating the role of the children’s guardian ad litem and attorney.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm with respect to both parents.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: Due to the mother’s ongoing domestically violent relationship, we hold the statutory ground was met.  The mother did not preserve error on her parent-child bond and additional time arguments, and even if error was preserved, we would deny both requests for lack of supporting evidence. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, seeks application of a permissive exception to termination, and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination because the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to termination or to grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order adjudicating her two minor daughters as children in need of assistance and the subsequent dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm.           

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

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one of his children.  He challenges the grounds for termination, claims termination was not in the child’s best interests, and urges an exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages).

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find the father abandoned or deserted the children when he ceased all efforts to comply with the reunification plan and moved to Wisconsin.  And notwithstanding the father’s waiver of the issue, we agree with the juvenile court that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.  We therefore affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (3 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved the defendant operated his motor vehicle while controlled substances—amphetamine and methamphetamine—were present in the defendant’s urine, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Margaret Reyes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (4 pages)

            Melissa Pedersen appeals her five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to dependent adult abuse resulting in serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pedersen to prison rather than suspending the sentence and imposing probation. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Mark R. Lawson and Melissa A. Anderson-Seeber, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J, and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (20 pages)

            A party appeals two orders by the district court: one declining to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties and one finding a fence a party erected “was a clear violation of the express easement that had been in existence since 1981.”  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude a settlement agreement was reached between the parties.  As such, we reverse and remand for the entry of an order of enforcement as to the settlement agreement.  And because the resolution of the settlement agreement issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the claim concerning the enforcement of the easement.