2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (12 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his son, arguing (1) the statutory ground for termination cannot apply since the son was not removed from his mother’s custody; (2) the State failed to meet its extra requirement for termination under the Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act; and (3) termination is not in the son’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: The ground for termination, Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024), does not require the son to be removed from the custody of both parents.  Ample evidence in the record, including a qualified expert representing the Osage Nation, shows beyond a reasonable doubt that failing to terminate would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the son.  And termination of the father’s parental rights is in the son’s best interest.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the judgment but, for the reasons expressed in my partial dissent in In re J.R., I dissent from the majority's reliance on that decision to find error was preserved on an issue that was not challenged below.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her son.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding (1) the mother waived any challenge to the ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h), and (2) termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudicating her daughter in need of assistance and continuing the daughter’s removal from her custody.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports adjudicating the daughter in need of assistance.  As for removal, the mother’s appeal from the initial ex parte removal is now moot.  And after the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court appropriately extended the daughter’s removal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (13 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing the district court was incorrect when the court found a statutory basis for termination and found termination was in the best interest of the child.  He argues the parent-child bond provides an exception to the termination of parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the father cannot provide a safe and stable home for the child and the termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of parental rights.  The parent-child bond does not overcome this finding.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the judgment but, for the reasons expressed in my partial dissent in In re J.R., I dissent from the majority’s reliance on that decision’s approach to error preservation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father’s petition on appeal did not substantively challenge any element of the ground for termination, which we find was sufficiently established.  And although the father and children are bonded, he did not prove termination of the bond would be detrimental to the children’s best interests.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother struggling with methamphetamine use appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, claiming that termination is not in the best interest of the child and that her bond with the child warrants a permissive exception.  OPINION HOLDS: Even though the record shows the mother shared a “very strong and loving bond” with her son, she continued to use methamphetamine after close to two years of services.  We accordingly affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights on our de novo review of the record.

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

            A father challenges the termination of his parental rights, arguing (1) one of the statutory grounds for termination was not established; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the juvenile court should have granted him a six-month extension to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review of the record, we affirm.