2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED on both appeals.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  They both challenge the statutory ground for termination and request more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm.  The child could not be returned to either parent’s custody at the time of the termination hearing, and an extension of time is unwarranted. 

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

            A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The State provided clear and convincing evidence that the daughter could not be returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing given the mother’s positive drug tests and her failure to progress beyond supervised visits.  We also agree that termination is in the daughter’s best interest because of the mother’s failure to fully address the safety concerns she poses to the daughter and the daughter’s success in her current placement.  And the mother failed to preserve error on her argument that the court should have applied the parent-bond exception.  We thus affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals a bridge order entered in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  The mother alleges the district court erred in granting the father sole legal and physical custody and placing restrictions on her visitation.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the issuance of a bridge order granting the father sole legal and physical custody, as well as the visitation restrictions imposed by the juvenile court.

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

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter.  He claims the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and he should have been granted additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Matthew A. Schuling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (10 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to her three children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (l) (2025) and to the youngest under paragraph (h) as well..  The mother appeals, arguing the State failed to prove the grounds for termination, termination is not in the children’s best interests, the juvenile court should have applied permissive exceptions to termination, and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to fulfill its obligation to make reasonable efforts towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Andrew Zimmerman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Kristal L. Phillips, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to both J.Q. (born in 2023) and W.Q. (born in 2024) pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) and (l) (2025).  The mother appeals, arguing (1) the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination and (2) because termination is not in the children’s best interests, the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in the paternal grandparents instead of terminating the mother’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother waived her challenge to the statutory ground.  Even absent waiver, clear and convincing evidence supports termination under section 232.116(1)(h).  And termination is in the best interests of the children.  So, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to J.Q. and W.Q.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (11 pages)

            A jury found Coby Hemphill guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree and sexual exploitation of a minor; both crimes involved fifteen-year-old A.R.  Weeks later, the court learned that unadmitted evidence had been inadvertently sent back to the jury for its deliberation—eleven pages of screenshots purportedly showing messages sent by Hemphill that were never offered by the State but remained on a flash drive that held some of the State’s admitted exhibits.  Hemphill moved for new trial on the basis that the jury received any evidence, paper or document out of court not authorized by the court, which he asserted violated his constitutional right to a fair trial, among others.  The district court denied the motion for new trial, which Hemphill challenges on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: After applying the jury misconduct test test, we affirm the denial of Hemphill’s motion for new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (11 pages)

            The State appeals the district court’s order restoring a petitioner’s firearm rights under Iowa Code section 724.31.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find that K.H. established by a preponderance of the evidence that he will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that restoration of his firearm rights would not be contrary to the public interest.  We therefore affirm the district court’s order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Robert Raveling appeals the decree dissolving his twenty-year marriage with Suzann Raveling.  He challenges the property division and the award of traditional spousal support.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree that it is equitable to equally divide the proceeds from the sale of the marital home.  While the home was indeed purchased in part with Robert’s inherited funds, the parties intended for the home to serve as their joint retirement nest egg, they resided in the home for nearly thirteen years, and Suzann contributed to the home’s substantial increase in value—keeping it well maintained and overseeing improvements.  We also agree that the traditional-spousal-support award is equitable given the parties’ twenty-year marriage, Suzann’s diminished income due to a disability she suffered during the marriage, and Robert’s greater financial position leaving the marriage.  And we award Suzann appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Daniel Kudron challenges the order granting summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the postconviction court did not clearly abuse its discretion by denying Kudron’s request to continue the hearing on the State’s motion for summary disposition, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Jamaine Simmons appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence.  OPINION HOLDS: Simmons failed to preserve error on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim and did not carry his burden to show he is actually innocent.  We affirm.