Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Most Recent Court of Appeals Summaries

For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here

Opinion Summaries

Case No. 19-1354:  State of Iowa v. Ler He Gay

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 19-1354

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul Huscher, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCES VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Ler He Gay appeals his convictions and sentences after a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary, going armed with a concealed weapon, and fourth-degree theft.  OPINION HOLDS: I. There is sufficient evidence by which the jury could find Gay had an intent to commit theft on entering an occupied structure to support his burglary conviction.  A jury could also find Gay aided and abetted a theft.  II. Because the district court failed to exercise its discretion under Iowa Code section 901.10(1) (2018) in sentencing Gay for burglary, we vacate that sentence and remand for resentencing.  III. We are not allowed to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.

Case No. 19-1453:  State of Iowa v. Mark Jacob Humphrey

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 19-1453

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Gregory G. Milani, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (8 pages)

            Mark Humphrey appeals his conviction for third-degree burglary.  OPINION HOLDS: I. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence that Humphrey had the specific intent to commit theft when he removed a camper and two dogs from his estranged wife’s home.  II. The district court correctly applied a weight-of-the-evidence standard in denying Humphrey’s motion for new trial.  III. We cannot decide Humphrey’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

Case No. 19-1716:  State of Iowa v. Jaycie Sheeder

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 19-1716

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J. (14 pages)

            Jaycie Sheeder appeals her convictions of murder and robbery in the first degree and accessory after the fact, and the sentence imposed for robbery.  She argues the State failed to prove she had knowledge that a codefendant intended to commit an assault, co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and the district court failed to exercise discretion in sentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s guilty verdict for murder in the first degree.  The district court’s vague comments about the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and announcement that objections would be entertained render any arguments on statements that did not receive an objection unpreserved for our review.  The State concedes that the district court did not exercise discretion when imposing the sentence for first-degree robbery; we vacate that sentence only and remand for resentencing and correction of the code section for Sheeder’s murder conviction.

Case No. 19-1872:  State of Iowa v. Joseph Eugene Peck

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 19-1872

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brad McCall, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            In this direct appeal from a guilty plea Joseph Peck claims he has good cause to appeal, that his plea counsel was ineffective, and that Iowa Code sections 814.6(1)(a)(3) and 814.7 (2019) are unconstitutional as violating separation-of-powers, due process, and equal protection.  OPINION HOLDS: Under Iowa Supreme Court precedent, which we must follow, these code sections are not unconstitutional, Peck has not shown good cause to appeal from his guilty plea, and he is not permitted to raise ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in this direct appeal, so we must dismiss the appeal.

Case No. 20-0025:  State of Iowa v. Dieudonne Manirabaruta

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0025

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            Dieudonne Manirabaruta appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of second-degree theft.  He argues his pro se letter to the court amounted to a motion in arrest of judgment and was timely filed, the district court erred in not considering it as such, and the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis it was unsupported by a factual basis.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no basis for granting discretionary review on the alleged motion in arrest of judgment, and finding no good cause to grant a right to appeal based on lack of factual basis supporting the plea, we dismiss the appeal.

Case No. 20-0132:  State of Iowa v. Steven Andrew Mauck

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0132

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            Steven Mauck appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse, contending the court erred in denying his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause and his motion for a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Even if we presume the district court abused its discretion in not striking the juror for cause, Mauck did not use a peremptory challenge to strike the juror ort seek an additional peremptory challenge to strike the juror.  Mauck has failed to establish actual prejudice resulted from the denial of his motion to strike for cause.  The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.  We affirm.

Case No. 20-0175:  State of Iowa v. Sherry Faye Mosley

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0175

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (7 pages)

            After pleading guilty, Sherry Mosley appeals her convictions for possession of methamphetamine, second offense; possession of marijuana, third offense; and third-degree theft.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Mosley has not shown good cause for a direct appeal from her guilty pleas as she does not raise an issue of sentencing or competency.  Also, because Mosley has not preserved error on the issues she seeks to raise concerning the denial of the motion in arrest of judgment, we do not grant discretionary review of her claims.  As Mosley’s appeal cannot be considered on direct appeal and we do not grant discretionary review, the appeal must be dismissed.

Case No. 20-0254:  State of Iowa v. Jack Lee Carson, Jr.

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0254

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Jack Carson Jr. appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  He argues (1) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress “because the purported alerts by the drug dog” on his vehicle “did not provide probable cause to search” and (2) his attorney was ineffective in failing to challenge the constitutionality of the traffic stop.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Carson’s motion to suppress and his conviction.

Case No. 20-0282:  Deandre Goode v. State of Iowa

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0282

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Deandre Goode appeals the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief.  He alleges his second PCR trial counsel—much like his criminal and first PCR trial counsels—was ineffective by failing to present Facebook metadata in support of his alibi defense.  Because the record isn’t sufficiently developed, Goode asks for a limited remand to develop the evidence or leave to file a third petition.  OPINION HOLDS: Neither remedy is available to Goode, so we affirm.

Case No. 20-0508:  In the Interest of the Conservatorship of Dillon W. Vierkant

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0508

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Rustin Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            Dillon Vierkant appeals the imposition of a conservatorship.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that it did not need an evaluation of Vierkant to determine whether the petitioner established grounds for a conservatorship.  Vierkant’s ineffective-assistance claim fails because he makes no prejudice argument.  And the appointed conservator did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Case No. 20-0513:  In re the Marriage of Rana

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0513

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Shawn and Leanne Rana dissolved their marriage by stipulated decree, which included division of their marital property.  One year later, as part of her petition to modify custody provisions, Leanne also raised a counterclaim asking the court to modify the property division based on Shawn’s alleged fraudulent concealment of certain assets.  The court later dismissed Leanne’s counterclaim, concluding (1) it was not properly brought under Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1012 and 1.1013 and (2) Leanne failed to prove her claim of fraud in equity. Leanne appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Leanne failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for her rule 1.1012 fraud claim and because she cannot obtain relief on her equitable fraud claim, we agree with the district court’s ruling dismissing her request to modify the property division in the dissolution decree. 

Case No. 20-0628:  Douglas Evander St. Cyr v. State of Iowa

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0628

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Partial Dissent by Tabor, J.  (23 pages)

            The defendant challenges his convictions after a bench trial on the grounds that his motion to suppress should have been granted and there was insufficient evidence to support several of the convictions.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the motion to suppress was properly denied because the traffic stop was lawful.  Further, we find substantial evidence to support the challenged convictions and substantial evidence to support the finding that defendant’s affirmative defenses are inapplicable.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s ruling on the motion to suppress.  Assuming the stop for failure to have permanent license plates was a reasonable mistake of fact, the officer’s failure to check the back window for proof of temporary registration unreasonably extended the detention.

Case No. 20-0691:  State of Iowa v. Derek Alexander Westwater

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0691

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Derek Westwater challenges the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to delivery of methamphetamine, a class “B” felony.  As part of the plea agreement, the State was supposed to recommend Westwater’s sentence be served concurrent to his sentence in another case.  However, the State was silent on the issue whether the sentence should be served concurrently or consecutively.  Westwater appeals, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when the State breached the plea agreement.  OPINION HOLDS: Westwater has good cause to appeal and, applying State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Iowa 2021), we consider the merits of his claim the prosecutor breached the plea agreement directly.  We conclude the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, so we remand for resentencing in front of a different judge.

Case No. 20-0907:  David Michael Evans v. State of Iowa

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0907

            Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            David Evans challenges the denial of his motion for a determination of his reasonable ability to pay restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no error in the district court’s conclusion that a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination is not available for Evans’s restitution orders that are being enforced as civil judgments rather than as criminal restitution.

Case No. 20-0916:  City of Maxwell and Emcasco Insurance Company v. Dennis M. Marshall

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-0916

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather L. Lauber, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            Dennis Marshall appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the workers’ compensation commissioner’s denial of his request for penalty benefits.  The City of Maxwell with its insurer, EMCASCO Insurance Company (together “the employer”), cross-appeals on the issues of healing period benefits and its request to present additional evidence during the judicial review proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the employer did not pay Marshall’s healing period benefits late, he is not entitled to penalty benefits.  There is substantial evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s determination of the time period for Marshall’s receipt of healing period benefits.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the employer’s request to remand the case to the commissioner for the presentation of additional evidence.  We affirm the district court’s decision affirming the commissioner’s rulings on the issues raised in the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Case No. 20-1010:  David Bradford v. State of Iowa

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1010

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            David Bradford appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second postconviction-relief action.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm because his action is time barred.

Case No. 20-1041:  State of Iowa v. John Chandler Kraus

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1041

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (9 pages)

                John Kraus appeals his conviction of second-degree theft as a habitual offender and the sentence imposed.  He argues the court erred in instructing the jury on an aider and abettor theory of liability, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no error in the court’s inclusion of an aiding and abetting instruction, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and no discretionary abuse in sentencing has been shown.  We affirm.

Case No. 20-1092:  State of Iowa v. Lauren Schulte

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1092

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan E. Greiner and Cynthia M. Moisan, District Associate Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Lauren Schulte appeals her guilty pleas and sentence following convictions for two operating-while-intoxicated offenses, claiming she has good cause to appeal her guilty plea, the plea was unknowing and involuntary, and the court’s acceptance of the guilty plea was plain error.  She also argues the sentencing court abused its discretion in sentencing her to prison and ordering the terms be served consecutively.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Schulte’s convictions, judgment and sentence. 

Case No. 20-1170:  State of Iowa v. Eric DeWayne Campbell, Jr.

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1170

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (4 pages)

            Eric Campbell Jr. appeals his resentences for convictions of first-degree robbery and voluntary manslaughter following resentencing.  He claims that his resentencing counsel was ineffective and that his sentence is illegal.  OPINION HOLDS: Error was not properly preserved for Campbell’s due process complaints as there was no objection at trial.  His ineffective-assistance claims are preserved for postconviction relief but cannot be decided on direct appeal.  Because risk assessment tools are statutorily allowed as “pertinent information,” his sentence is not illegal based on the court’s use of those tools. 

Case No. 20-1288:  State of Iowa v. William D. Beeman

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1288

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (12 pages)

            William Beeman appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Treating Beeman’s appeal from a denial of his motion for a new trial as a petition for writ of certiorari and granting the writ, we find no illegality or abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Beeman’s motion for a new trial, and we annul the writ of certiorari.   

Case No. 20-1353:  McKinnon Q. Pangburn v. Rookies, Inc. d/b/a Rookies Sports Bar

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1353

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (13 pages)

            McKinnon Q. Pangburn filed a dram shop claim and a premise liability claim against Rookies Sports Bar after he was assaulted in the bar’s parking lot.  Rookies moved for summary judgment on both claims, which the district court granted.  OPINION HOLDS: Pangburn presented a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the dram shop claim.  But he failed to establish premise liability as a matter of law.  So we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial.

Case No. 20-1548:  State of Iowa v. Aubree Kay Bowers

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1548

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Russell G. Keast and Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J. (9 pages)

            Aubree Bowers appeals her conviction of operating while intoxicated.  She challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Bowers’s motion to suppress and find the evidence sufficient to support her conviction.

Case No. 20-1585:  State of Iowa v. Rhonda S. Dawson

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1585

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty and David M. Porter, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (4 pages)

            Dawson appeals from her conviction of third-degree burglary.  She argues that the repository she burgled should have been considered a motor vehicle, lowering her conviction from a class “D” felony to an aggravated misdemeanor.  OPINION HOLDS: The burgled vehicle was not a motor vehicle because it was not self-propelled.  We affirm the lower court’s finding. 

Case No. 20-1610:  In re the Marriage of Nelson

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1610

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Mick Nelson appeals the district court’s denial of a retroactive reduction in his child support obligation to Julie Nelson contending the “step-down” provision of the decree is “self-executing.”  He also contests the order that he pay a portion of his youngest child’s uncovered orthodontia expenses.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the order was not “self-executing,” and Mick owes Julie unpaid child support.  He also owes her for his portion of the orthodontia expenses.  We also grant attorney fees to Julie in the amount of $8000. 

Case No. 20-1671:  In the Matter of Property Seized for Forfeiture from Barbara J. Kavars

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 20-1671

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Colleen Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (12 pages)

            Barbara Kavars filed applications for the return of 154 dogs and two cats taken from her property on November 12, 2018.  The district court denied the applications, finding Kavars was not the owner of the animals as a result of a 2018 relinquishment agreement and a prior court ruling of disposition.  Kavars appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

Case No. 21-0070:  In the Interest of K.D. and B.D., Minor Children

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0070

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his two minor children.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to a missed deadline in advancing his appeal and a lack of extenuating circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal and are required to dismiss it.

Case No. 21-0246:  In the Interest of N.E., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0246

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  Special Concurrence by Schumacher, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her care.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to the mother’s care and affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize additional supporting points for such result.

Case No. 21-0313:  In the Interest of K.D., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0313

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie L. Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights in a private termination proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence to show the father abandoned the child and termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

Case No. 21-0418:  Jessica K. Lagatta v. Brandon B. Kettler

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0418

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            Brandon Kettler appeals from the ruling on his petition to modify provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Jessica Kettler.  Brandon argues: (1) his visitation with the parties’ children should increase; (2) he should remain responsible for the children’s health insurance; (3) his obligations to undergo drug screens and to provide drug test results and mental-health reports to Jessica should terminate after a specified time; and (4) Jessica should not be allowed to suspend his visitation without seeking court approval.  Both parties request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the ruling to suspend Brandon’s parenting time for two months following a positive drug test.  Due to ongoing concerns about Brandon’s mental health and substance abuse, we otherwise affirm the modification ruling and deny the requests for appellate attorney fees.

Case No. 21-0507:  In the Interest of L.J., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0507

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly S. Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, born in 2020.  He argues (1) the State failed to prove two of the three grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the court should have granted an exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s termination of the father’s parental rights to the child.

Case No. 21-0746:  In the Interest of R.A., R.A., and J.W., Minor Children

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0746

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination, and termination is in the children’s best interests.

Case No. 21-0806:  In the Interest of J.V., A.V. and A.V.

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0806

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights.  The mother contends (1) the State failed to prove the child could not be returned to her care; (2) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the district court should have invoked an exception to termination based on the parent-child bond.  The father (1) challenges the State’s evidence supporting the grounds for termination, including proof that adjudicatory harm still existed; (2) argues termination was not in the children’s best interests; and (3) challenges the State’s failure to provide and file certain documents before the State filed its termination-of-parental-rights petition.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

Case No. 21-0987:  In the Interest of K.B., Jr., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0987

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that it is not in the child’s best interests to terminate her rights due to the closeness of the child’s bond with the mother and half-siblings.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we find the State proved that the child could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of termination by clear and convincing evidence.  Although the mother desires to parent the child, the record reveals that she is not yet able to consistently provide for the child’s wellbeing.  Even though the mother and child share a bond, it is not so strong that termination would be detrimental to the child. 

Case No. 21-0989:  In the Interest of C.L., B.B., and H.B., Minor Children

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-0989

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A father and one of his children appeal the termination of the father’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the grounds for termination have been established, a six-month extension is not warranted, and termination is in the best interests of the children.  We affirm.

Case No. 21-1046:  In the Interest of C.R.

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-1046

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old child, challenging only the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Despite years of services, the child could not be returned to his mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  Thus, we find clear and convincing evidence to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021) and affirm. 

Case No. 21-1097:  In the Interest of J.O., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-1097

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  MOTHER’S APPEAL AFFIRMED; FATHER’S APPEAL REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Nichole and David separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a three-year-old son.  Both allege that severing their legal relationship with their son is not in his best interests and ask us to reverse claiming he is in the legal custody of his maternal grandmother.  In the alternative, both parents ask for more time for reunification.  Nichole asks us to consider placing the child in a guardianship with her mother.  OPINION HOLDS: We reach different results for each parent.  We affirm termination of Nichole’s parental rights.  But we find delaying permanency for six months would provide enough time for David to meet expected behavioral changes that would eliminate the need for the child’s removal.  We reverse and remand as to David. 

Case No. 21-1120:  In the Interest of K.R., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-1120

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jennifer Bahr, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals a permanency order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding setting the permanency goal as establishment of a guardianship in maternal relatives.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father’s arguments insufficient to facilitate appellate review, deem them waived, and affirm.

Case No. 21-1122:  In the Interest of E.K., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-1122

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M. N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            L.K. appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State did not prove her child could not be returned to her care, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and termination will be detrimental because of the closeness of her and her child’s bond.  OPINION HOLDS: The State did meet its statutory burden to prove the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination.  Termination is in the best interests of the child.  Termination will not be detrimental due to the closeness of the bond between L.K. and her child.  We affirm the termination of L.K.’s parental rights. 

Case No. 21-1144:  In the Interest of K.J., Minor Child

Filed Oct 20, 2021

View Opinion No. 21-1144

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court order terminating her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence, the mother should not be granted an extension of time, termination is in the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

© 2021 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.