Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Van Buren County, John M. Wright, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (7 pages)

Travis Gonterman appeals his sentence following his guilty plea for driving while barred as a habitual offender.  On appeal, Gonterman contends the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him by not providing any reasons on the record for his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Gonterman has failed to establish good cause, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his appeal.  Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.         

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Joshua P. Schier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (4 pages)

            T.C. appeals the district court’s order continuing his residential treatment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, John R. Flynn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            Ruslan Negruta appeals his conviction and sentence for ongoing criminal conduct.  He argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison rather than probation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Negruta did not file a motion in arrest of judgment after being properly advised of the need to do so to challenge his guilty plea on appeal, we cannot consider the challenge to his plea.  And seeing no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court’s sentencing decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (16 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  Both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and claim the State failed to prove the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services made active efforts to reunify them with their child.  The mother also claims termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  And the father claims the court should have placed the child in a guardianship with a maternal aunt in lieu of terminating parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: In light of the mother’s ongoing substance use and her continued contact with the child’s abusive father, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights and find her requested alternatives to termination are not warranted. 

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

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children, H.S., born in 2021, and R.B., born in 2023.  She argues the juvenile court should have granted a six month extension of the termination proceedings to allow her additional time to reunify with her children.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Buller, P.J., Sandy, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights to C.H. and M.H. pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2024), respectively.  The parents separately appeal, but both argue giving them additional time to work toward reunification or, alternatively, establishing a guardianship is in the children’s best interests rather than termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We cannot say an additional six months will remedy the issues preventing reunification, so we agree with the juvenile court that additional time is not warranted.  And because there is not a viable option for guardian and a guardianship is not in the children’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.     

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

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to F.C., born in 2024, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  The mother challenges termination, arguing (1) it was improper for the juvenile court to hold a combined permanency and termination-of-parental-rights hearing, (2) the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination because F.C. could have been returned to her custody, and (3) the court should have given her additional time to work toward reunification.  In the alternative, the mother asks for the court to establish a guardianship in lieu of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART ON APPEAL; REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services cross-appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order.  Both challenge the juvenile court’s denial of their requests for supervised visitation in a therapeutic setting.  And the father challenges the order for a new psychosexual evaluation, contending that the court erroneously denied his request that it be completed by a different evaluator than the first evaluation.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the visitation restriction.  Given the father’s progress over the past year, and with the safeguards of full supervision and a therapeutic setting, we believe the daughter can be adequately protected while allowing the case to proceed.  Because the court’s order does not prohibit a new evaluator for the father’s second psychosexual evaluation, and the Department agrees that a new evaluator is appropriate, we affirm the court’s order authorizing the evaluation.