2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (13 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to L.S., born in 2019, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024).  On appeal, the mother challenges the juvenile court’s conclusion the statutory ground was proved, arguing L.S. could have been returned to her custody at the time of the termination trial or, alternatively, that the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts at reunifying her with the child.  She also argues that the loss of her rights is not in the child’s best interests because of the bond the two share.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to L.S.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (5 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to F.M., born in 2016; D.M., born in 2018; and S.M., born in 2018, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024).  On appeal, the father concedes the statutory ground for termination was proved.  He argues it is in the children’s best interests to give him six more months to work toward reunification with the children, who had been returned to the mother’s custody.  Alternatively, he asks us to apply the permissive factor in section 232.116(3)(a) to save the parent-child relationships.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we cannot conclude the need for removal would no longer exist in six months and decline to apply a permissive factor to save the parent-child relationships, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has not shown she is able of meeting her children’s needs—particularly the substantial medical needs of one of the children—and termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding termination is in the child’s best interests and no permissive exception applies, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e) and (h) (2024), arguing (1) the grounds for termination were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the State did not make reasonable efforts for reunification, and (3) she should have been granted an additional six months to work towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother failed to preserve error on the reasonable‑efforts and relative‑custody‑exception claims, and since termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Susan Cole, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A father appeals the termination of parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review of the record, we credit the views of the professionals in the case that, despite making efforts to gain parenting skills, the father lacks the ability to care for the child safely.  We affirm the juvenile court order.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of parental rights, arguing the juvenile court erred in finding a statutory basis for termination under sections 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2024) and finding termination was in the best interest of the child.  If termination is proper, the father asks this court to apply a permissive exception.  OPINION FINDS: Because we find termination was proper under section 232.116(1)(f) and in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.  We find a permissive exception does not apply. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, William Price, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing a permissive exception to termination applies.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Crystal S. Cronk, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (22 pages)

            After being nearly involved in a head-on collision, which resulted in injuries to the driver of the other vehicle, Zachary Brain was investigated for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Brain was later criminally charged, and he moved to suppress the evidence obtained through his interactions with officers and the result of the breath test.  The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Brain sought discretionary review of the ruling, which our supreme court granted before transferring the case to us.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of Brain’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Myron Gookin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages).

            Star Auto Company, Inc. (Star Auto) appeals from a breach-of-contract action wherein damages were awarded to Mosinski Enterprises, LLC (Mosinski) based on Star Auto’s failure to competently rebuild Mosinski’s truck engine.  Star Auto argues the district court erred by finding it repudiated the contract with Mosinski and in finding that Mosinski did not breach the warranty by altering the engine’s settings.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the finding that Star Auto’s repudiation was definite and unequivocal and that Mosinski did not breach the terms of the warranty prior to Star Auto’s repudiation.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of Mosinski.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Active Thermal Concepts, Inc. and Active Holdings Group, Inc. appeal a summary-judgment ruling that they breached a contract with Labor Force, Inc. for temporary employees.  OPINION HOLDS: Active’s disputes over the form of Labor Force’s summary judgment filings lack merit—Labor Force’s motion was timely, it contained a statement of undisputed facts, and any failure by Labor Force to expressly specify which of Active’s facts it was disputing in resistance to Active’s competing motion did not require the court to grant Active’s motion.  So too do Active’s substantive arguments fail—the summary-judgment evidence showed the parties intended for the contract to include services to Active Holdings, Labor Force substantially performed its contractual duties to the extent possible, and Labor Force incurred damages from Active’s breach.  We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Labor Force.