2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, David Faith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Elizabeth Sowers and Ross Turner divorced in 2021.  The parties agreed to joint legal custody and joint physical care of their three children.  But their communication related to the children deteriorated, so each filed for a modification of the decree.  The district court ordered a different parenting schedule and other strategies to facilitate communication but did not change the custodial or physical-care status.  Elizabeth appeals, arguing that she proved a substantial change in circumstances that supported granting her sole legal custody, physical care, and a different parenting schedule to minimize the conflicts.  Both parents request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the award of sole legal custody or physical care is not in the children’s best interests and attorney fees are not warranted.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (5 pages)

            Karie McElroy appeals her sentence for serious injury by motor vehicle and operating while intoxicated, arguing the district court abused its discretion by sentencing her to a term of incarceration rather than granting her request for probation.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm McElroy’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Patrick D. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Kennith Onstot contends that he paid health insurance premiums for coverage of the parties’ child during a time when he was court-ordered to pay cash medical support payments under Iowa Code chapter 252E.1(3) (2022).  Kennith asked the district court to waive the outstanding cash medical balance.  The district court denied his request, concluding it did not have statutory authority to retroactively waive the cash medical support payments that accrued even though Kennith paid for private health insurance and otherwise would not have been required to maintain cash medical support; Kennith challenges this decision on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: While sympathetic to Kennith’s concerns, we agree with the district court that our case law and the statutes that govern the cash medical support obligation do not allow us to retroactively change his court-ordered obligations.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (4 pages)

            Michael Beaver appeals his sentences for two counts of indecent exposure.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting concurrent two-year indeterminate prison sentences rather than rather than sentencing him to time served.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Daniel P. Vakulskas, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

            Jason Petersen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence underlying his conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize Petersen based on his wife’s tip and the surrounding circumstances, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Lars G. Anderson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Elizabeth Kastein-Ferneau appeals an order modifying the physical-care provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Kolin Ferneau.  She claims the district court erred by finding a material and substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the decree warranting modification, by giving “improper weight and deference” to a child and family reporter’s report, and by failing to consider “alternative remedies.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the physical-care provision in a custody modification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.  The father of the youngest child appeals termination of his rights to that child.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Michelle Jungers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (29 pages)

            Seven-year-old A.S. became an orphan after first her father and then her mother died of drug overdoses in a ten-day span.  After adjudicating A.S. a child in need of assistance (CINA) and following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to place the child with caregivers from the category of fictive kin.  The intervenor-grandparents challenge that ruling and others, arguing (1) A.S. should never have been adjudicated CINA because they were appropriate family members ready to take over her care when her parents died; (2) in the alternative—assuming we do not reverse the CINA adjudication—we should reverse the part of the dispositional order placing A.S. with fictive kin rather than relatives, and (3) the juvenile court should have granted their motion for concurrent jurisdiction so they can pursue a guardianship under Iowa Code chapter 232D (2024).  While filing neither an appeal nor a petition for writ of certiorari, the State—representing HHS—takes a position contrary to the juvenile court’s ruling.  The child’s attorney responds in support of the juvenile court ruling and asks us to disregard the State’s appellate filings.  OPINION HOLDS: We do not consider the State’s position or filings since it argues against the juvenile court ruling but did not file a notice of appeal.  We cannot reach the merits of the grandparents’ arguments about the CINA adjudication.  And we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional ruling concluding placement with adult relatives is not in A.S.’s best interests and agree that denying concurrent jurisdiction serves A.S’s best interests. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son contending that termination was not in his best interests and that the court should have entered a bridge order.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s rights and a bridge order is not an appropriate option, nor is it in the child’s best interests.  So we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (3 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to G.W. (born in 2019) and D.W. (born in 2023) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2024), respectively.  The mother appeals, arguing (1) the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children; (2) the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination because the children could have been returned to her custody at the time of the termination trial; (3) alternatively, she should be given more time to work toward reunification; (4) termination of her parental rights is not in the children’s best interests; and (5) the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to save the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to both children. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Erica Crisp, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the mother’s appeal, we find that sufficient evidence supports the statutory grounds for termination, terminating her rights is in the child’s best interests, the parent-child bond exception does not apply, and the record does not support her request for more time.  As for the father, we find his reasonable-efforts argument was waived, termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and an extension of time is unwarranted.  We affirm both parents’ appeals.