Thomas v Mattena

Thomas appealed the district court judgment which denied Mattena’s individual liability for loan payments. The panel affirmed. It held that Thomas failed to raise the issue of whether an individual liability clause was essential to the formation of a commercial loan contract at the district court and thus failed to preserve it and further held there was no plain error in the judgment below given the total lack of any case authority that a personal liability clause is essential to a commercial loan contract.

In the Interests of D.V. and A.V. (E.V. v State)

E.V. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held the juvenile court did not err in finding that E.V. is unfit and failed to make parental adjustment as E.V. had a long history of drug use, had her children removed three times, failed to overcome her drug problems after going through rehab and is currently in jail for a drug crime and did not err in finding termination was in the children’s best interest as E.V. cannot regain custody and the children are bonded to their foster parents who want to adopt them.

In the Interests of D.V. and A.V. (J.V. v State)

J.V. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held the juvenile court did not base its decision solely on the term of J.V.’s current sentence but instead looked at his 20 year history of drug convictions and incarcerations, the fact he was with A.V. for a few months and has never met D.V. and the reality that both J.V. and children’s mother have had their rights terminated and thus there is no prospect for a return to a normal home within one year. It held there was no error in the best interests analysis as children have bonded with their foster parents who desire to adopt them and can provide them with safety and protection form neglect.

In the Interests of P.B. and D.B. (L.B. v State)

L.B. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panela affirmed holding there was no error in the juvenile court’s order as L.B. refused to follow the recommendations of her substance abuse and mental health evaluations and children’s grandparents have applied to adopt the children and been approved. It also held that failure by the juvenile court to find termination strictly necessary was not error here as the termination was done to allow the adoption and thus implicitly found necessity.