2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to two children, arguing termination is not in the children’s best interests and that the juvenile court should have transferred guardianship to their grandparents instead.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we find that termination of parental rights, rather than a guardianship, is in the best interests of the children.  We therefore affirm the order of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal termination of their parental rights to a child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the child could not have been safely returned to the father’s custody as of trial, termination is in the child’s best interests, and an additional six months for reunification was unnecessary.  Error was not preserved on any exceptions to thwart termination.  We affirm on both appeals.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the statutory grounds for termination have been met, the best interests of the child favor termination, and no extensions or exceptions to termination apply, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to four children. OPINION HOLDS: We find termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children and decline to apply a permissive exception based on the parent-child bond.  We also conclude that a six-month extension of time was not warranted and that a guardianship with the children’s grandmother was not appropriate at the time of termination.   We therefore affirm the order of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, claiming the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and termination is not in the children’s best interests because of the bond she shares with the children.  She also claims her due process rights were violated “when the court permitted hearsay evidence to be admitted at the termination trial.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She challenges the statutory grounds authorizing termination, contends the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, argues termination is not in the children’s best interests, and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject the mother’s reasonable-efforts challenge and find a statutory ground for termination satisfied because the children cannot be safely returned to the mother’s custody.  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and we do not grant the mother any additional time to work toward reunification.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals termination of his parental rights to a child born in 2024, challenging the statutory ground, arguing termination is not in the child’s best interests, and seeking additional time to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the statutory elements were proven and termination is in the child’s best interests, and declining to apply a permissive exception, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child born in December 2021.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the mother abandoned or deserted the child as required to terminate parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) (2025).  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  Finally, section 232.116(1)(b) does not require reasonable efforts.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Erica Crisp, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Parents separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to two of their children.  Both parents claim the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the bond they share with the parents, and the court should have permitted a six-month extension to termination proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2023, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (g), and (h) (2025).  She challenges each of the three steps in our termination analysis and alternatively asks for more time to reunify with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother failed to contest termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), we affirm on that unchallenged ground.  We also find that termination is in the child’s best interests, the mother’s permissive-exception argument is not preserved for our review, and an extension of time is unwarranted. 

            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 Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  Both parents claim that the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination and the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination based on their respective bonds with their children.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the father, we conclude that his children could not be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a ground for termination.  We do not apply a permissive exception to preclude termination of his parental rights.  As to the mother, the children could not be safely returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a statutory ground for termination of her parental rights.  And we do not apply a permissive exception to preclude termination of her parental rights either.