Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, The Honorable Terry Rickers, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (8 pages)

            Katie Dekker appeals the district court’s ruling modifying the dissolution decree between her and Bradley Witt. She contends the district court erred in modifying the decree to grant both her and Bradley joint physical care of the children. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court did equity in determining that a shared physical care arrangement serves the best interests of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Kimberly Ayotte, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two daughters. The mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination. Both parents advocate for the application of a statutory exception to termination. The father doesn’t challenge the statutory grounds for termination but contends termination was not in the children’s best interests. He also advocates for placing the children in a guardianship with his mother. OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s rights and the parents failed to show an exception applies. Termination of the father’s rights was in their best interests. And the circumstances are inappropriate for a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. So, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, The Honorable Amy M. Moore, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J. (6 pages)

            Kamryn Jacobsen appeals the order granting her joint physical care of the child she shares with Austin Wood. OPINION HOLDS:  The record supports awarding the parties joint physical care of the child.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Kimberly Ayotte, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son. The mother argues that termination of her parental rights is not in the son’s best interest. In his petition on appeal and many other appellate motions, the father challenges jurisdiction and generally assails the legitimacy of both the child-in-need-of-assistance and termination proceedings. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm both terminations. We will not delay permanency for the son while the mother travels the long road of imprisonment and recovery. As for the father, we have carefully reviewed the record and find no jurisdictional, statutory, or evidentiary errors that require reversal. And we agree that the State proved that termination was warranted and in the son’s best interest.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Rachael E. Seymour, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (13 pages)

              After parental rights were terminated, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe moved to transfer the child-custody proceedings to tribal court under Iowa Code chapter 232B (2025). The juvenile court denied the request, finding good cause based on perceived logistical and procedural hardships. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, the record does not support that conclusion. Because the statutory exception to mandatory transfer was not established, the court was required to grant the Tribe’s motion. We therefore reverse and remand for transfer of jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Brent Pattison, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. (12 pages)

            A guardian ad litem appeals the denial of a petition for termination of a father’s parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Finding termination of the father’s rights and establishing permanency is in the children’s best interests, we reverse and remand with directions to terminate the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Carrie K. Bryner, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She contends the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination and argues a permissive exception to termination should apply based on the closeness of the mother–child relationship.  The mother asks this court to reverse the termination or grant her more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights and deny her request for additional time.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Lynn Poschner, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Chicchelly and Langholz, JJ., but decided en banc. Opinion by Langholz, J. Dissent by Schumacher, J.  (18 pages)

            The State appeals a juvenile court order transferring guardianship and custody of the children to their foster parents rather than the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services after termination of the parental rights of the children’s parents. The State argues that the juvenile court was required to appoint the Department as guardian under Iowa Code section 232.117(3) (2025) because the Department did not waive its priority. OPINION HOLDS: Section 232.117(3) gives the Department the highest priority in consideration among the four categories of potential guardians. But it authorizes the juvenile court to select from “any of” those categories. And like the rest of chapter 232, the court must consider the child’s best interest along with the order of priority in selecting the appropriate guardian. We thus reject the State’s argument on appeal that the juvenile court was mandated to appoint the Department as guardian merely because the Department had not waived its right to first-priority consideration. Because the State makes no other challenge to the juvenile court’s order, we affirm.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as I disagree with the determination that Iowa Code section 232.117(3) does not require the court to place custody and guardianship with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services following termination, absent waiver by the Department. I would reverse and remand with instructions to appoint the Department as the guardian and custodian of J.B. and R.R.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, The Honorable Patrick McAvan, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Badding, P.J. (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the juvenile court’s findings that termination is in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, The Honorable Erica Crisp, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, P.J. (12 pages)

              A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we agree that the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing and it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights, so we affirm the termination of parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, The Honorable Charles D. Fagan, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She argues (1) there was insufficient evidence supporting the grounds for termination, (2) the State failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, (3) termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of the children, and (4) the State failed to prove that the children could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother did not preserve error on her reasonable efforts argument.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, The Honorable Kristal Phillips, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (7 pages)

            The parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their toddler daughter. OPINION HOLDS: The State presented clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to their custody and it is in her best interests to terminate their parental rights.