2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Michael K. Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A defendant appeals his criminal sentences, claiming the district court abused its discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: Nothing in the record suggests that Ewurs’s sentence was based on unreasonable or untenable grounds, so we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  Special concurrence by Greer, P.J.  (17 pages)

            Arbor Court Healthcare, LLC (Arbor Court) appeals the district court’s order affirming the final decision in its administrative appeal before the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  Arbor Court contends that the district court (1) committed legal error in finding H.F. 891 barred HHS from rebasing Arbor Court’s Medicaid compensation rates based on a short period cost report, and alternatively, (2) H.F. 891’s prohibition on Arbor Court’s requested rebasing was unconstitutional as applied to Arbor Court.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s order, finding the district court committed no errors of law and Arbor Court held no property right in the short report process.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Unlike the majority, I would find Arbor Court preserved error on the issue of the application of H.F. 891 and consider the argument on the merits.  But doing so would not lead me to a different result, as the application of HHS’s informal process as to Arbor Court could not be considered unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (2 pages)

            Henry Drake Jr. appeals his sentence imposed following the revocation of his deferred judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm without further opinion.  Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (10 pages)

    Dog owners appeal a decision by the City of Cedar Falls to “humanely destroy” their American bulldog, Reese.  Their dog, according to the city council’s administration committee, poses an “unreasonable risk of harm” to the public.  The Westerns contend the record lacks substantial evidence to support that conclusion.  OPINION HOLDS: After four previous biting incidents, the city slated Reese for destruction, but the police chief gave his owners a second chance.  Unfortunately, their lack of supervision led Reese to bite a fifth individual—a teen riding by on a bicycle.  We conclude substantial evidence supports the city’s determination that the dog poses an unreasonable risk of harm to public safety, so we annul the writ.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Shane M. Wiley, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            The respondent appeals a district court order that found she is seriously mentally impaired and involuntarily committed her for treatment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a danger to herself or others, we reverse and remand with directions to terminate the respondent’s commitment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Ashley Sparks, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the district court’s order modifying parenting time in the divorce decree between him and his former wife, arguing the modification is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the modification is in the children’s best interests, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Charles C. Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his discretionary sentence after the revocation of his deferred judgment following a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the deferred judgment or imposing sentence.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the mother’s arguments generally thwarted by the existence of a five-year no contact order, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.  Because neither child can safely return to the father’s care and additional time was not warranted, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son.  The mother argues that (1) the State did not prove a ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and (2) termination is not in the son’s best interest.  The father argues that (1) the juvenile court should have granted a six-month extension to work towards reunification; (2) termination of his parental rights is not in the son’s best interest; (3) the parent–child bond exception applies under Iowa Code section 232.116(3); and (4) a guardianship is a better alternative for a permanency outcome.  OPINION HOLDS: On the mother’s appeal, we agree that the State proved the statutory ground for termination—especially given her testimony agreeing that the son could not yet return to her custody at the time of the termination hearing—and that termination of the mother’s rights is in the son’s best interest.  As for the father’s appeal, we see no basis to find that the son could have been placed in his custody with another six months when it was uncertain that the father would be released from prison and he agreed he would not be ready to care for the son.  And we agree with the juvenile court that termination is in the son’s best interest, any parent–child bond does not warrant declining to terminate, and a guardianship is not appropriate here.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.  The father of the younger child separately appeals termination of his parental rights to the younger child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the children could not have been safely returned to the mother as of trial, an additional six months for reunification was not warranted, termination was in the children’s best interests, and the permissive bond exception is inapplicable.  The father’s claims were waived or otherwise not preserved for our review.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (15 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Although they appeal separately, they raise identical claims.  Each contests the statutory grounds for termination and contends termination of their respective parental rights is not in their children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we affirm the termination of each parent’s rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Kristal L. Phillips, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Per Curiam.  Special concurrence by Langholz, J.  (14 pages).

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father raises several issues on appeal, but we reach the merits on only two—the statutory grounds for termination and whether termination is in the son’s best interest.  On those claims, we find clear and convincing evidence supported terminating the father’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024) and the son is best served by termination.  Because the father has waived or not preserved the other issues, including his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we do not consider their merits.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I join all the majority’s opinion except for its holding that the father waived his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.  Because this is an expedited chapter 232 appeal without normal briefing, I would hold that that the father’s argument in his petition on appeal sufficiently presented this issue for our consideration.  And seeing no other barrier to reaching the merits, I would hold that the claim fails because the father cannot show any prejudice.