IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0470
Filed April 29, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF X.C.,
Minor Child,
C.S., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District
Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the adjudication of her child as in need of assistance
following disposition. AFFIRMED.
Jesse A. Macro, Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant
mother
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Michael Sorci of Youth Law Center, Des Moines, attorney and guardian ad
litem for minor child.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2020).
2
SCOTT, Senior Judge.
This thirty-seven-year-old mother has a long history of substance abuse,
dating back to when she was fourteen. She also has a history of mental-health
afflictions and engaging in criminal activity. The family came to the attention of the
Iowa Department of Human Services in December 2019 as a result of allegations
of familial violence and the kidnapping of the child by a grandparent. 1 The State
sought and obtained an order for temporary removal, which was confirmed
following a removal hearing. At the adjudication hearing in February 2020, the
mother stipulated to adjudication of the child as in need of assistance, and the
juvenile court entered an order adjudicating the child as such under Iowa Code
section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and (n) (2019). The matter proceeded to a dispositional
hearing in March, at which the mother contested continued removal and
adjudication. At the time of the hearing, the mother had recently undergone
mental-health and substance-abuse evaluations. She declined recommended
mental-health treatment. She had also discontinued taking her mental-health
medication. She was open to recommended inpatient substance-abuse treatment,
but she declined outpatient treatment while she was placed on the waitlist for
inpatient treatment. The mother continued to decline drug tests, and she remained
homeless and without employment or transportation.
The mother now appeals the adjudication of her child as in need of
assistance and the subsequent dispositional order. See In re Long, 313 N.W.2d
473, 477 (Iowa 1981) (concluding a pre-dispositional order for adjudication is not
1 The mother has previously had her parental rights terminated as to four of her
other children.
3
a final order appealable as a matter of right). Having stipulated to the initial
adjudication, the mother cannot now be heard to argue on appeal that adjudication
at that time was improper. See, e.g., Jasper v. State, 477 N.W.2d 852, 856 (Iowa
1991) (noting a litigant “cannot deliberately act so as to invite error and then object
because the court has accepted the invitation”); Odegard v. Gregerson, 12 N.W.2d
559, 562 (Iowa 1944) (same).
The mother goes on to appear to request that we reverse the juvenile court’s
dispositional order and either suspend the adjudication, order the child be placed
in her care, or both. See Iowa Code §§ 232.99(4) (noting the court’s options
following a dispositional hearing), .100 (providing for option to suspend the
judgment and continue the proceedings), .101 (providing for option to allow parent
to retain custody of the child.) Her argument is limited to the following:
The mother contends the factual findings of the court were
erroneous. The mother believes the court misinterpreted the exhibits
and testimony which portrayed the mother in an unfavorable light.
The mother contends she is a good mother, who loves her child and
can care for the child full time. The mother requests her child be
returned to her immediately.
....
The mother requests that the Iowa Court of Appeals issue an
opinion vacating the juvenile court orders and returning the child to
the mother . . . .
We find the mother’s vague arguments, merely supported by general
conclusions without references to the record, to be insufficient to facilitate our
review and deem them waived. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d) (“The petition
on appeal shall substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401.”); 6.1401–Form 5
(“[S]tate what findings of fact or conclusions of law the district court made with
which you disagree and why, generally referencing a particular part of the record,
4
witnesses’ testimony, or exhibits that support your position on appeal. . . . General
conclusions, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not supported by law or the facts’
are not acceptable.”); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); see also In re C.B.,
611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all encompassing argument is
insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo review.”); Inghram v. Dairyland Mut.
Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits of this case would
require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and
advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.”). We acknowledge the
expedited nature of this appeal, see generally Iowa R. App. P. 6.201, but the
mother has failed to provide us anything to review. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of X.C., Minor Child
Combined Opinion