2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (16 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Both the mother and father argue the juvenile court erred in finding a statutory basis for termination, the father continues to contest the juvenile court’s determination that termination was in the best interests of the child, the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts, and no permissive exception applies.  OPINION FINDS: Because we find the child could not have been returned to the care and custody of the child’s parents at the time of termination, termination is in the best interests of the child, the Department made reasonable efforts, and no permissive exception applies, we affirm the termination of parental rights.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their sons, arguing that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the ground for termination and that termination is not in the best interests of the sons.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court.  The State proved the statutory ground for terminating the mother and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  There is clear and convincing evidence that the sons could not be safely returned to the mother and father at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination of the parent’s parental rights is in the sons’ best interests given the parent’s failure to address the safety concerns of their home and still struggling with basic parenting skills.  We thus affirm on both appeals. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Michelle Jungers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her thirteen-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the mother’s ongoing mental-health struggles, we affirm the termination.  
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Elizabeth Batey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the children could not have been returned to either parent’s custody at the time of termination, termination is in each child’s best interests, and no permissive exception applies.  We therefore affirm the termination of the mother and father’s respective parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A father and a child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) separately appeal the termination of the father’s parental rights, arguing that a guardianship with the maternal grandmother was in the child’s best interests.  The GAL also argues the juvenile court erred in denying a motion for continuance.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the GAL’s motion for continuance.  We affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their respective parental rights to their three children.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds for termination with respect to both parents.  Termination of their respective parental rights is in the children’s best interests given that both parents present a safety risk to the children.  While both parents share bonds with the children, the detrimental effects of termination and the severing of those bonds do not outweigh their inability to meet the children’s needs, so we decline to apply a permissive exception to preserve either parents’ parental rights. 

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

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old son, contesting the statutory grounds for termination and requesting six more months to achieve reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: After carefully considering the record, we reach the same conclusions as the juvenile court and affirm the termination order.
 

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that a guardianship is not in the child’s best interests and the mother’s permissive‑exception argument is waived, we affirm termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, arguing that termination is not in their best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  The children have been out of their mother’s custody—and in their father’s—for over two years.  They need permanency and stability.  And it is not safe to return the children to the mother, who tried to hire a hitman to kill the father.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adair County, Jordan Brackey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (4 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the incarcerated father’s parental rights to T.W., born in 2023, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  On appeal, the father concedes the State proved the statutory ground for termination.  He argues termination of his rights is not in the child’s best interests and that guardianship with the maternal grandmother in lieu of termination is the best option for T.W., as it would allow her to have a positive relationship with her father while also providing her with the safety and stability she needs.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court; termination of the father’s parental rights is in T.W.’s best interests.  We affirm.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interests, and we do not apply a permissive exception to preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Oscar and Maria Recio appeal the district court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing their suit against Frederick Fridley, D.L. Peterson Trust, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., and Doe Corporation.  They argue that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement when a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether their attorney had authority to settle their claims.  OPINION HOLDS: The ruling that the Recios appeal is not a summary-judgment ruling.  Without objection from the Recios, the court decided this preliminary factual issue—finding based on the evidence before it that the parties reached a settlement agreement.  So any error in this procedure is not preserved.  And reviewing for corrections of errors at law, we hold that the court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.  Given the other evidence and the presumption of attorney authority, we cannot say as a matter of law that the court was required to believe a single affidavit.  We thus affirm the district court’s order enforcing the settlement agreement and dismissing the Recios’ suit.