IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1316

Filed October 2, 2024

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S. and I.S.,

Minor Children,

J.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, 

Judge.

The mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order. 

AFFIRMED.

Camille Kahn of Brubaker, Flynn & Darland, P.C., Davenport, for appellant 

mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Mackenzie Moran, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Brian P. Donnelly of Mayer, Lonergan & Rolfes, Clinton, attorney and 

guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

In December 2023, the mother was arrested after assaulting the father in 

the presence of their children, S.S. (born in 2014) and I.S. (born in 2013). The 

mother has a history of methamphetamine use, and the father suspected the 

mother used the drug prior to the attack. When the Iowa Department of Health 

and Human Services became involved following the incident, the mother refused 

to cooperate with drug testing. Following a contested hearing, the children were 

adjudicated in need of assistance (CINA) and formally removed from the mother’s 

custody. S.S. and I.S. were to remain in the family home in the father’s custody, 

and the mother was allowed only supervised contact with the children. 

Before both the April dispositional hearing and the July dispositional review 

hearing, the department recommended to the court that the children remain 

adjudicated CINA and in the custody of just the father.1It also asked the court to 

“make a determination that the department is making reasonable efforts towards

the children’s permanency goal.” The mother did not contest any of these 

recommendations. 

Now, on appeal from the dispositional review order, the mother argues

(1) the department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children 

and (2) the juvenile court should have concluded the CINA proceedings have

served their purpose and close the cases. The mother’s claims are contrary to the 

stance she took below, when she expressly stated she was not contesting the 

1 As a side note, at the dispositional review hearing, the juvenile court opined it 

was “ridiculous” that the children had been on a waiting list for counseling for three 

months and pushed for the counseling to begin. We join in that characterization 

and hope the court’s directive was accomplished for the children’s best interests.
3

department’s recommendations. Because the mother acquiesced to these rulings, 

she waived any right to challenge them now.2 See, e.g., Jasper v. State, 477 

N.W.2d 852, 856 (Iowa 1991) (noting one “cannot deliberately act so as to invite 

error and then object because the court has accepted the invitation”); McCracken 

v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 445 N.W.2d 375, 378 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (“[I]t is 

elementary a litigant cannot complain of error which he has invited or to which he 

has assented.”).

We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(c), (e).

AFFIRMED.

2 We recognize that at the hearing, the mother “express[ed] disappointment” that 

when she completed a treatment program in Colorado, her provider was on 

vacation and out of contact. And she asked the department to provide help in the 

future to aid her transition from living in South Carolina (where she was residing 

as of the dispositional review hearing) back to living in Iowa. We do not understand 

either of these to be an assertion the department failed to meet its reasonableefforts mandate, especially in the face of the mother’s statement that the hearing 

was uncontested.