2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights to their four children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The State proved the statutory grounds for terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights under paragraphs “f” and “h” of Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2024) because the children could not be returned to either parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children because the parents have shown over the past twelve years of juvenile-court involvement that they are unable to make any long-lasting changes that would provide the children with stability.  And the children are finally receiving that stability and permanence in their foster home after all these years.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals a modified dispositional order removing three children from his custody.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that keeping the children in the home jeopardizes their safety and is contrary to their welfare.  Though the father insists he has made strides, the children were initially removed for poor supervision, and after two years of services, those concerns persist.  Placing the children’s safety at the forefront, we thus affirm the juvenile court’s modified dispositional order removing the children from the father’s custody.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Parents jointly appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  They challenge one of the statutory grounds for termination, claim termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the parent-child bond, and request an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s combined adjudicatory and dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the child is imminently likely to suffer harmful effects and inadequate care due to the mother’s unaddressed substance use and affirm his adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.96A(3) and (14) (2025).  For the same reasons, we find that the child’s placement outside the mother’s care is the least restrictive disposition.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and her child separately appeal the termination of the mother’s parental rights, challenging the best‑interests determination and asking us to apply permissive exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination is in the best interests of the child and we decline to apply a permissive exception, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights, arguing that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence for the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (f) (2025); that termination is not in the child’s best interests; and, alternatively, that the juvenile court should have applied exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, contending that the State failed to meet its burden to show a statutory basis for termination and that termination is in the best interests of the child.  She asks this court to apply a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We address the mother’s third argument—asking this court to apply a permissive exception—because we find it is her only argument properly formulated for review.  We find a permissive exception is not warranted and affirm the decision of the juvenile court.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  Both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and request that a guardianship be established as an alternative to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother filed her notice of appeal four days late and has not shown the late filing was outside of her control, we deny her request for a delayed appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child.  She argues that: (1) the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination; (2) termination is not in the child’s best interest; (3) a permissive exception to termination should apply due to the closeness of the mother-child relationship; and (4) she should have been granted additional time to pursue reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s challenge to the statutory ground authorizing termination fails because both her trial testimony and appellate briefing acknowledge the child could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing.  In light of the mother’s history of alcohol abuse and untreated mental-health concerns, we affirm the juvenile court’s finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.  We also find the juvenile court properly declined to apply a permissive exception to termination and correctly denied the mother’s request for a six-month extension.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan Greiner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the juvenile court’s termination of their respective parental rights.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights as to the son, D.C., and the daughter, C.W.-S., and the father’s parental rights as to the daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer and Karen Kaufman Salic, Judges.  CONVICTIONS CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument en banc.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Special concurrence by Buller, J.  Special concurrence by Langholz, J., Partial Dissent by Ahlers, J.  (31 pages)

            Jacob Cullum appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, the denial of his motion for new trial, and his sentence.  He argues the district court wrongly: (1) denied his motion to suppress because the officer who stopped him lacked reasonable suspicion, (2) denied his motion for new trial after applying the wrong standard, and (3) engaged in a fixed sentencing scheme or failed to realize it had the discretion to suspend the fines.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, we affirm the denial of his motion to suppress.  On his second claim, we agree the district court used the wrong standard when ruling on his motion for a new trial; we conditionally affirm his convictions but remand to the district court for application of the correct standard.  Finally, the district court failed to recognize and exercise its discretion to suspend the fines, so we vacate Cullum’s sentences.  If Cullum’s motion for new trial is denied and his convictions affirmed, he is to be resentenced.   SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the judgment to vacate the fine, finding myself in part boxed in by existing supreme court precedent.   But I would encourage the elected branches to clarify by statute whether suspended fines may be imposed absent probation.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS:  As a matter of first principles of statutory interpretation, I agree 100% with the partial dissent’s thoughtful textual analysis of our sentencing statutes.  But even so, I reluctantly concur in the judgment to reverse and remand for resentencing on the fine because we do not get to follow those first principles when our supreme court has already rejected that precise interpretation in a materially identical statute.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because I believe the district court correctly determined that it could not suspend the fines without also placing the defendant on probation, and the court determined that probation was not appropriate in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant.  The defendant is not entitled to resentencing.