Court Opinion

ID: 9389949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:46.845301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.754238
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 23-0351
                                 Filed April 26, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF M.W.,
Minor Child,

W.W., Father,
      Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, District

Associate Judge.

         A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.

AFFIRMED.

         G. Brian Weiler, Davenport, for appellant father.

         Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and William E. Sales, III, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

         Patricia A. Rolfstad, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor

child.

         Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Mullins, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                             2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

         A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child—born in

2021—under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2022).1                His argument in his

petition on appeal is limited to the following passages:

                 The trial court erred by terminating the rights of the father
         when the father was not shown to be a risk to the child or using drugs,
         and reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the child with the
         father or to assist the father while he was disabled and
         homeless . . . .
                 ....
                 The father disagrees with each finding that a subsection of
         232.116(1)(h) was proven with the respect to the father, with the
         finding that the State provided reasonable efforts to reunify with the
         father, and with the finding that termination of the father’s rights is in
         the child’s best interests.

In addition, while the father passively cites two legal authorities—one being the

ground for termination—he “makes no argument how the cited authority applies or

why the cited authority warrants reversal.”         In re A.B.-L., No. 21-0687, 2021

WL 3909816, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2021).

         We find the father’s challenge—consisting of only conclusory statements

without citations to the record or any meaningful substantive argument—

insufficient to facilitate our review and therefore waived.         See Iowa Rs. App.

P. 6.201(1)(d) (“The petition on appeal shall substantially comply with form 5 in

rule 6.1401.”); .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, witnesses’ testimony, or exhibits that support your

position on appeal. . . . General conclusions, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not

1   The mother’s rights were also terminated. She did not appeal.
                                         3

supported by law or the facts’ are not acceptable.”); 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.”); Hyler v. Garner, 548

N.W.2d 864, 876 (1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party] might

have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to

support such arguments.”);        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.”); cf. Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3)

(requiring arguments in briefs to contain reasoning, citations to authorities, and

references to pertinent parts of the record).

          While we acknowledge the expedited nature of this appeal, see generally

Iowa R. App. P. 6.201, the father has failed to provide us with anything to

meaningfully review without assuming an improper partisan role. As a result, we

affirm.

          AFFIRMED.