Court Opinion

ID: 9781088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:06:33.771376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:56.449943
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 23-0979
                               Filed August 30, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF T.G., M.G., H.G., K.G., and M.G.,
Minor Children,

M.G., Father,
      Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D.

Sauer, District Associate Judge.

      A father appeals after the juvenile court entered review orders in child-in-

need-of-assistance proceedings involving five children. AFFIRMED.

      Jane M. Wright, Forest City, for appellant father.

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

General, for appellee State.

      Cameron Sprecher of Sprecher Law Office P.L.C., Mason City, attorney and

guardian ad litem for minor children.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller., J., and Doyle, S.J.*

      *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
                                          2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

       A father appeals after entry of review orders in child-in-need-of-assistance

(CINA) proceedings involving five children.       Claiming that the juvenile court

violated both the federal and state Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), he seeks

dismissal of the CINA proceedings. We review his claim de novo. See In re

D.M., 965 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Iowa 2021).

       The father first challenged the alleged ICWA violations by moving to dismiss

the cases at the start of a review hearing in April 2023—six months after the

children were removed from his custody and more than four months after the CINA

adjudications. He claimed the proceedings were invalid because no qualified

expert testified that removing the children from his custody was necessary to

prevent imminent physical damage or harm. Finding no ICWA violations, the

juvenile court denied his motion. The court reiterated this finding in its review

orders and again in denying the father’s motion for new trial. The father appeals

all three rulings and reasserts his claim of ICWA violations on appeal.1

1 As is all too common, the father claims he preserved error by timely filing a notice

of appeal. As we have frequently stated—almost seventy times since our
published opinion of State v. Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844, 846-47 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2013)—the filing of a notice of appeal does not preserve error for our review.
See Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Error Preservation in Civil
Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on Present Practice, 55 Drake L. Rev. 39, 48 (2006)
(“However error is preserved, it is not preserved by filing a notice of appeal. While
this is a common statement in briefs, it is erroneous, for the notice of appeal has
nothing to do with error preservation.”).
        “As a general rule, parties to a child-welfare proceeding have an obligation
to preserve error for appeal, even error of constitutional dimension.” In re B.E., 875
N.W.2d 181, 186 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). In other words, the parties must raise the
ground when they first become apparent. See id. At the review hearing, the
juvenile court questioned whether the father had preserved his claim by waiting so
long to raise it:
                                         3

      The record shows that the children’s mother is a registered member of the

White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. In October 2022, the juvenile

court sent notice of the CINA proceedings involving these children to White Earth

Band. A member of the White Earth Band with authorization to provide qualified

expert witness testimony in ICWA cases involving White Earth children appeared

at the hearing after temporary removal, disposition hearing, and review hearing.

At the review hearing, that expert testified that he did not believe there were any

ICWA violations and the State was making efforts to return the children to the

father’s custody. On this record, we find no ICWA violation and affirm.

      AFFIRMED.

               THE COURT: Can the parties remain silent on that issue
        though, Ms. Wright?
               MS. WRIGHT: No.
               THE COURT: And then object to it later on? Because I don’t
        remember at that adjudicatory hearing anything—I don’t remember
        a specific objection at that time similar to the one that you’re making
        today. I don’t remember that at the adjudicatory hearing or, I guess,
        at the dispositional hearing . . . .
        The State argues the father waived error by failing to make a sufficiently
detailed argument in his petition on appeal. Instead, the father merely cites the
ICWA violations listed in Iowa Code section 232B.14(2)(f) (2022) (failing to return
the child to the child’s parents when removal is no longer necessary to prevent
imminent physical danger or harm) and (g) (failing to provide the testimony of
qualified expert witnesses as required by chapter 232B). In his conclusion, the
father asks us for the remedy provided in section 232B.14(3) (requiring that the
court decline jurisdiction over the petition and immediately return the child unless
doing so would subject the child to a substantial and immediate danger or threat
of such danger). Making a general claim may waive error. See 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.”).
        Despite concerns about error preservation, we opt to address the father’s
claim on the merits.