2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Hans Becker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination because the child could not be returned to the mother’s custody.  We find that termination is in the child’s best interests and decline to grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (10 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a thirteen-year-old daughter.  She argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts toward their reunification, contests the ground for termination, contends termination was not in the child’s best interests, and argues the court should have given her additional time.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother was offered appropriate services and did not choose to engage until the eve of termination, we reject her reasonable-efforts claim.  We also find that the State offered clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be safely returned to her mother’s care.  In fact, at the termination hearing, the mother only asked for more time to work toward reunification with her daughter.  As for more time, we agree with the district court that deferring permanency was not in the child’s best interests.  Thus, we affirm the termination order.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child, challenging the statutory elements and requesting additional time.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the termination of their parental rights to their daughter.  The mother argues that termination of her rights is not in the daughter’s best interest and that a guardianship should have been established instead.  The father argues that termination of his rights is not in the daughter’s best interest, that the court should have exercised its discretion to decline termination under the parent–child bond exception and the relative-custody exception, and that a guardianship should have been established instead.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the juvenile court that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the daughter’s best interest given the mother’s failure to address the safety concerns she poses to the daughter, and a guardianship is not appropriate given the daughter’s age and the family interactions.  As for the father’s appeal, we also agree that it is in the daughter’s best interest for his rights to be terminated rather than establishing a guardianship as she deserves permanency now.  Any parent-child bond does not warrant declining to terminate the father’s parental rights, and the relative-custody exception does not apply because the daughter is not in the legal custody of a relative.  We thus affirm on both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because termination is in the best interests of the child, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two sons, and the older son also appeals termination of the mother’s rights to him.  OPINION HOLDS: The son’s objection to termination is grounded in his wish to care for the mother and be with her to ensure she is supported going forward.  But at twelve years old, he deserves to be a kid.  And one of our core responsibilities is to ensure children are cared for, not doing the caretaking.  So, like the juvenile court, we find the child-objection exception should not prevent termination here.  As for the other issues, the mother’s lack of progress with her substance use precludes returning the sons to her custody, the sons are best served by termination, no permissive exception should apply, and the juvenile court appropriately declined to impose a guardianship or give extra time to work toward reunification.  We therefore affirm both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.H., under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (f) and (l) (2024).  The mother contests the grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, and alternatively contends that the child should have been placed in a guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the grounds for termination have been met, termination is in the child’s best interests, and that guardianship is not a viable alternative to termination, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jessica R. Noll, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the statutory grounds for termination have been met and termination is in the best interests of the child, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Matthew A. Schuling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, David Brooks, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.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, whether termination is in the children’s best interests, and the juvenile court’s decision to not apply a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination, termination is in the children’s best interests, and we decline to apply a permissive exception to termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (9 pages)

            An applicant for postconviction relief appeals the denial of his application, which sought relief from four second-degree sexual abuse convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant has not shown any ineffective assistance, nor has he shown he would have prevailed on his claim of purportedly newly discovered evidence, we affirm dismissal of his application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Charles K. Borth and Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  Dissent by Buller, J.  (16 pages)

            Timothy Griffin appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not make the necessary meaningful inquiry to determine whether Griffin knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, we cannot conclude that Griffin’s waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.  As a result, we must reverse and remand for a new trial.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I do not condone rewarding difficult defendants with a new trial, find no reversible error in this record, and believe the majority holding to be deeply fact-bound or a misapplication of controlling precedent.