Here is the opinion in Young v. State:
Iowa COA Affirms Misdemeanor Traffic Ticket over Challenge from Sac and Fox Tribal Member
Here is the opinion in Young v. State:
Iowa Court of Appeals
Recent Iowa COA Opinions on ICWA Expert Testimony
Here are the unpublished opinions in In re D.S. (here and here). Here is a description of these cases from a dedicated reader:
This decision deals with whether Expert Witness Testimony needs to “support” the overall decision of the Trial Court’s decision to terminate parental rights. In the first decision, the Court of Appeals misunderstood the parents’ arguments on the expert witness testimony issue. The Court thought they were claiming that no QEW testimony was provided. On the contrary, the parents felt that there was QEW and that QEW testimony needed to support the Trial Court’s decision. The parents stated the QEW testimony did not support the Trial Court’s decision, and thus asked for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision. The second decision essentially states that there is a split on whether QEW testimony just needs to be provided or if the QEW testimony actually needs to support the Trial Court’s decision. This appellate panel decided that QEW testimony does not need to support the overall decision.
An excerpt from the first:
Iowa Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Case
Here is the opinion in In re L.B.-A.D.
An excerpt:
Under the circumstances presented, we find the State has proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(h). Additionally, we find no error in the juvenile court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. However, because we determine the court erred in failing to give proper notice to the tribes in which the children could be determined to be “Indian children,” we remand the matter to the juvenile court, which shall give notice of the termination proceedings to the appropriate Indian tribes. See R.E.K.F., 698 N.W.2d at 150. If the tribes fail to respond within the appropriate timeframe or reply and determine the children are not eligible for tribal membership, the juvenile court’s original order of termination will stand. If a tribe responds and intervenes, reversal of the termination and further proceedings consistent with the requirements of the Iowa ICWA will be necessary. We therefore affirm the juvenile court‟s termination ruling on this condition. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Iowa COA Affirms Termination of Indian Parent’s Rights
Here is the opinion in In re C.M.
Iowa Appellate Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights of Indian Parent
Here is the unpublished opinion in In re J.A.P.
Iowa Court of Appeals Decides Insurance Coverage Matter related to Sac and Fox Leadership Dispute
Here is the opinion in Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Attys. Process & Investigation Servs. An excerpt:
Attorneys Process & Investigation Services, Inc. (APIS), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale Insurance Company on its petition seeking a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it had issued to APIS provided no coverage for acts alleged in a lawsuit filed by the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa (Tribe) against APIS in tribal court. APIS also appeals the district court‟s dismissal of its counterclaims against Scottsdale. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
Iowa Court of Appeals Strikes Down Portion of Iowa ICWA
Here is the opinion in In re J.L.
An excerpt:
We find that Iowa Code section 232B.5(10) and (13) that prevents a child subject to the proceedings from objecting to a motion to transfer is unconstitutional. Additionally, we find that Iowa Code section 232B.5(13) defining good cause to deny a motion to transfer is unconstitutional. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a hearing on the transfer motion, during which the children shall be allowed to object and the children shall be allowed to introduce evidence of their best interests.
Iowa Court of Appeals Rejects Bid to Intervene in Indian Child Case by Sac and Fox Tribe
Here is the opinion in In the Interest of A.P. and S.T. From the opinion:
The Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa (Tribe) appeals from the juvenile court‟s denial of its motion to intervene in children in need of assistance (CINA) proceedings that involve two children it alleges are Indian children within the meaning of Iowa‟s Indian Child Welfare Act (Iowa ICWA), Iowa Code chapter 232B (2007). Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court
Turtle Talk 