2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Patrick D. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals a dissolution decree placing the parties’ children in their joint physical care, claiming the district court should not have: (1) overlooked her role as the children’s primary caregiver; (2) disregarded the parties’ inability to communicate and agree on daily matters; (3) ignored the father’s domestic abuse assault of her while the dissolution was pending; and (4) based its physical-care decision on “perceived fairness to the parties.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decision, finding upon our de novo review of the record that joint physical care is in the children’s best interests. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (5 pages)

    Jason Haire Jr. appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm. 
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals a custody-modification order.  She contests the district court finding a substantial change in circumstances, that the father was a superior caretaker, and the credibility findings underlying the court’s decision to place physical care with the father.  The father requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm and order the mother to pay $1000 of the father’s appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            Judith Faria Briceno appeals the district court’s denial of her petition to modify the physical care provision of the decree dissolving her marriage to Edward Rojas Pena.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we conclude Judith failed to prove a substantial and material change in circumstances.  We affirm the denial of her modification petition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ringgold County, Brad McCall, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            Richard Hammond challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a domestic abuse protective order.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Joseph McCarville, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: As the district court correctly determined the father abandoned the child pursuant to section 600A.8(3)(b) and termination is in A.M.’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David A. Lester, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A criminal defendant attempts to appeal following a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the only error alleged was not preserved and the defendant did not establish good cause, we dismiss the attempted appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (16 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024), challenging each of the three steps in our termination framework.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination because there was not clear and convincing evidence that the child could not “be returned to the custody of the child’s parents as provided in section 232.102.”  Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4).  We accordingly reverse the juvenile court’s ruling terminating the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings.  

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their three-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of the parents’ parental rights, termination of the parents’ parental rights is in the child’s best interest, and a guardianship is not the appropriate permanency option here. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (16 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Both the mother and father argue the juvenile court erred in finding a statutory basis for termination, the father continues to contest the juvenile court’s determination that termination was in the best interests of the child, the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts, and no permissive exception applies.  OPINION FINDS: Because we find the child could not have been returned to the care and custody of the child’s parents at the time of termination, termination is in the best interests of the child, the Department made reasonable efforts, and no permissive exception applies, we affirm the termination of parental rights.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their sons, arguing that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the ground for termination and that termination is not in the best interests of the sons.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The State proved the statutory ground for terminating the mother and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  There is clear and convincing evidence that the sons could not be safely returned to the mother and father at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination of the parent’s parental rights is in the sons’ best interests given the parent’s failure to address the safety concerns of their home and still struggling with basic parenting skills.  We thus affirm on both appeals. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Michelle Jungers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her thirteen-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the mother’s ongoing mental-health struggles, we affirm the termination.