IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1028
Filed September 13, 2017
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., L.S., and A.S.,
Minor Children,
S.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Adria Kester,
District Associate Judge.
The mother appeals from the dispositional order entered in a child-in-
need-of-assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED
Martha A. Sibbel of Law Office of Martha Sibbel, PLC, Carroll, for
appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kathryn K. Lang, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Sarah J. Livingston of Thatcher, Tofilon, & Livingston, P.L.C., Fort Dodge,
guardian ad litem for minor children.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
On January 31, 2017, J.S., L.S., and A.S. came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) after an incident related to the
mother’s methamphetamine use. DHS reports indicate the mother and L.S. and
A.S.’s father used methamphetamine and became involved in a domestic
violence incident.1 The police responded to the incident and found
methamphetamine in the mother’s possession. The State filed a child-in-need-
of-assistance (CINA) petition alleging the children were likely to suffer imminent
harm as a result of the mother’s failure to exercise care in supervising the
children, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (6)(n) (2017).
On February 13, the juvenile court issued an ex parte removal order, and
the children were placed with the paternal grandmother. On February 17, an
adjudicatory hearing was held, and the parties stipulated to the continued
removal of the children pursuant to the ex parte removal order. Custody of the
children remained with DHS for placement in family foster care with the paternal
grandmother.
On April 18, the mother filed a motion contesting multiple issues related to
the CINA proceeding and DHS services. The mother requested to be heard on
the motion at the upcoming dispositional hearing. On June 16, a dispositional
hearing was held, and at the request of the mother, the issues related to the
motion were postponed until the next review hearing. The mother then
acquiesced to the court’s dispositional order adopting DHS recommendations.
1
J.S.’s father and L.S. and A.S.’s father are not parties to this appeal.
3
The order confirmed the CINA adjudication for all children and continued
placement with the paternal grandmother.
The mother appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional order, arguing the
juvenile court’s placement of the children is improper because the circumstances
that led to removal no longer exist. Our appellate rules of procedure, however,
require the mother to preserve error on her issue before she can raise it on
appeal. See In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003). “[E]rror preservation
rules provide that error is preserved for appellate review when a party raises an
issue and the district court rules on it.” State ex rel. Miller v. Vertrue, Inc., 834
N.W.2d 12, 20 (Iowa 2013); see also In re H.V., No. 15-1481, 2015 WL 6507559,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015). Here, the mother did not raise before the
juvenile court the issue of whether the circumstances that led to removal
continue to exist, and the court did not rule on it. Error was not preserved.
AFFIRMED.