Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Smith appeals his guilty plea, arguing he was not adequately informed of the consequences of pleading to the lesser-included charge of attempted murder.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Smith did not raise his argument on appeal in his motion in arrest of judgment, his only claim of error was not preserved, so he does not have good cause to appeal.  We dismiss his appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (10 pages)

            Nathan Gunson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition to modify the decree dissolving his marriage with Heather Gunson.  He argues the district court erred in (1) failing to sever shared physical care and award Nathan physical care, (2) failing to set child support and uncovered medical costs in accordance with Nathan’s physical care status, (3) awarding Heather trial attorney fees, and (4) failing to award Nathan trial attorney fees.  Nathan also requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that Heather’s move caused a material and substantial change in circumstances.  We accordingly reverse the district court’s denial of Nathan’s petition, modify the custody order to award him physical care of the children, and remand to the district court for determination of a visitation schedule, recalculation of child support and uncovered medical costs, and entry of an order consistent with this opinion.  We reverse the district court’s award of trial attorney fees to Heather and award Nathan $5000 in appellate attorney fees.

            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.  (13 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing the juvenile court impinged on his due process rights, erred in finding a statutory basis for termination, erred in finding termination was in the child’s best interests, failed to apply an exception to termination, and failed to provide reasonable efforts to the father to aid in reunification.  Alternatively, the father asks for guardianship or extension of termination proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State’s failure to formally serve the father with notice of the child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding does not require a reversal of the order terminating his parental rights.  Substantively, the court did not err in finding a statutory basis for termination, termination is in the best interests of the child, no permissive exception to termination applies, and any extension of proceedings or implementation of a guardianship is not in the best interest of the child. 

            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.