Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the Iowa Board of Medicine passed a rule establishing standards requiring physicians who prescribe or administer abortion-inducing drugs to personally perform a physical examination and to be physically present when the abortion-inducing drug is provided. Planned Parenthood challenged the rule as both improperly enacted and in violation of the Iowa Constitution. The district court denied Planned Parenthood’s claims and upheld the rule addressing each of Planned Parenthood’s challenges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Board’s rule violates the controlling “undue burden” test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court as the federal constitutional test; and (2) therefore, the rule violates the Iowa Constitution under the less stringent Iowa constitutional standard advanced by the Board. View "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med." on Justia Law

After Susan Thatcher was diagnosed with terminal cancer, she filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Ronald Thatcher. Susan subsequently filed a motion to bifurcate dissolution, requesting that the Supreme Court first dissolve the marriage and decide the issues of the parties’ property and debts at a later date. The day before Susan’s death, the district court granted the motion to bifurcate and dissolved the marriage, with the division of property to be “determined at a later date.” Ronald appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the order of bifurcation and decree of dissolution, holding that Iowa Code 598.21(1) requires the marital dissolution and division of property to be contemporaneous. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Thatcher" on Justia Law

Father and Mother married in 1996 and had two children. The parties divorced in 2006. The divorce decree granted the parents joint legal custody of the children but allocated primary physical care of the children to Mother. After Mother remarried, she moved approximately seventy miles from her Des Moines suburb to a rural home in a new school district. Father filed a petition seeking modification of the physical care and child support provisions of the dissolution decree, asserting that the proposed move would disrupt the children’s lives and interfere with his extraordinary visitation and active role in parenting the children. The district court modified the decree by granting Father primary physical care. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father failed to prove the children’s move constituted a substantial change of circumstances or that Father’s ability to minister to the needs of the children was superior to Mother’s. Remanded for determination of child support and a visitation schedule based upon the present circumstances. View "In re Marriage of Hoffman" on Justia Law

In its order dissolving the marriage of Steven Gust and Linda Gust, the district court required Steven to pay traditional child support in the amount of $1400 and then in the amount of $2000 per month upon termination of child support, for life. Steven appealed, challenging the spousal support amount as excessive in amount and duration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the award of traditional spousal support of unlimited duration in the amount of $2000 per month was fair in this case; and (2) the district court did not err in not fashioning a spousal support order that took into account Steven’s future retirement, as the question of whether Steven’s child support should be modified upon his retirement must be made in a modification action when retirement is imminent or has actually occurred. View "In re Marriage of Gust" on Justia Law

Appellant was the established father of J.C., although he was not the child’s biological father. After the juvenile court adjudicated J.C. a child in need of assistance (CINA), the State filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and the child’s biological father. The juvenile court dismissed Appellant as a party, concluding that because he was neither the child’s biological father nor her adoptive father, Appellant was not a necessary party in the pending CINA proceedings and termination of parental rights proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court correctly dismissed Appellant as a necessary party to the juvenile proceedings because, although Appellant was J.C.’s established father, he was not her parent under Iowa law. View "In re Interest of J.C." on Justia Law

In 2013, a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was filed alleging that three minor children were in need. The guardian ad litem subsequently subpoenaed Mother’s therapist to testify at the CINA adjudicatory hearing regarding her mental health counseling of Mother. Thomas filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that the information sought was confidential where Mother declined to waive the patient-psychotherapist privilege. The juvenile court concluded that Thomas must testify at the hearing. Thomas appealed, and the Supreme Court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court annulled the writ and remanded, holding that Iowa Code 232.96(5)’s statutory exception to the psychotherapist privilege in CINA adjudicatory hearings controlled in this CINA proceeding, and the juvenile court’s order enforcing the subpoena requiring Thomas to testify did not violate the confidentiality afforded mental health treatment under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). View "In re Interest of A.M." on Justia Law

Kenneth and Melissa were married for over twenty years when they sought a divorce in 1994. In 2011, Kenneth filed a second petition for modification, requesting termination or reduction of his weekly spousal support and monthly medical insurance payments to Melissa. After a modification trial, the district court modified the decree to (1) require that Kenneth, instead of making weekly support payments indefinitely, continue making weekly payments until he reached the age of sixty-seven, or until Melissa remarried, or until either party died; and (2) eliminate the requirement that Kenneth subsidize Melissa's monthly health insurance premium. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment as modified and (1) reduced Kenneth's obligation to pay weekly spousal support; and (2) terminated Kenneth's monthly obligation to contribute to the cost of Melissa's health insurance.View "In re Marriage of Michael" on Justia Law

After the mother of nine-year-old N.S. and five-year-old J.S. admitted to using methamphetamine, the juvenile court filed an order adjudicating N.S. and J.S. children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code 232.2(6)(a), (b), and (c)(2). A dispositional hearing was subsequently held, and N.S. and J.S. were placed with their paternal grandmother. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the children should be adjudicated CINA under section 232.2(6)(b). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the order of the juvenile court finding N.S. and J.S. to be CINA under section 232.2(6)(b), holding that a parent’s status as a methamphetamine addict, without more, is not sufficient to establish an imminent likelihood of physical injury to a child under the statute. View "In re Interest of J.S." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a mother who serves as the guardian for her intellectually disabled adult son must obtain court approval before arranging a vasectomy for him. Maria Kennedy was the legal guardian of Stuart Kennedy, a twenty-one-year-old man with intellectual disabilities who lived in a group home. In 2013, Stuart filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. Maria, in turn, petitioned for appointment of an involuntary conservator for Stuart. Concerned that Stuart was having sex with his coworker, Maria took Stuart to the doctor’s office to get a vasectomy. Stuart’s attorney subsequently filed a further petition to terminate or modify the guardianship because Maria had forced Stuart to undergo sterilization. After a combined hearing on the petitions, the probate court (1) declined to terminate Stuart’s guardianship, (2) found Maria did not violate Iowa Code 633.635(2)(b) by arranging for Stuart’s vasectomy without court approval, and (3) ordered Maria’s appointment as Stuart’s conservator. The Supreme Court (1) held that section 633.635(2) required Maria to get prior court approval for Stuart’s vasectomy; but (2) affirmed the guardianship and conservatorship orders entered by the probate court. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Kennedy" on Justia Law

After a trial, Angela and Patric were divorced pursuant to a dissolution decree that awarded the parties joint legal custody and joint physical care of the parties' two children. Angela appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to grant her motion for continuance and in ordering joint physical care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Angela's motion to continue under the circumstances presented in this case, and (2) awarding joint physical care based on the court's finding that joint physical care was in the best interests of the children.View "In re Marriage of Harris" on Justia Law