P.K., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2018)

A mother appeals a juvenile court order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding removing her children from her physical custody. In her petition on appeal, the mother fails to provide any substantive argument to support her cause. She vaguely questions “[w]hether or not the department used reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children” and “[w]hether or not the department considered [her] disability in providing services under the ADA.” Her argument is limited to her statement that she “disagrees with the finding that reasonable efforts have been made to alleviate the need for out of home placement.” Her failure to make a specific argument on appeal rather than a general claim waives 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.”). Furthermore, the mother has failed to state where in the record she objected to the services offered or requested additional services; she merely states “[t]he issue was preserved by testimony presented at the trial that services were reduced before removal.” Error has therefore not been preserved. Cf. In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MULLINS, Judge.