D.S., Father, Appellant, v. << (2021)

A father appeals the juvenile court's order regarding permanency review and removal, alleging the district court erred in (1) not forcing a child to appear in violation of Iowa Code section 232.91 (2020) and (2) finding clear and convincing evidence of imminent harm leading to removal. “We generally review [child-in-need-of-assistance] proceedings and termination of parental rights proceedings de novo.” In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014).

Petitions on appeal must “substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.201(1)(d). Rule 6.1401–Form 5 specifically directs the petition on appeal to “include supporting legal authority for each issue raised, including authority contrary to [the] case, if known.” Accord 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). The petition on appeal raises two issues, and each issue cites one code section the father alleges was violated. The father cites no case law or other legal authority. In the course of the “findings of fact or conclusions of law with which you disagree” sections of his petition he cites to no supporting legal authority for any part of his arguments.

On the first issue, he complains the children were not forced to appear in violation of Iowa Code section 232.91. His argument focuses on his right under section 232.91 to have them appear. He cites no authority in support of his apparent claim that section affords him such a right. Thus, he has waived that issue. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d), .903(2)(g)(3), .1401–Form 5.

On the second issue, other than the bare citation to section 232.95, he cites no legal authority in support of the arguments he asserts concerning burden of proof or imminent risk of physical harm.¹ We find the father has waived this issue as well. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.201(1)(d), .903(2)(g)(3), .1401–Form 5.

We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In comparison, the State's response to the petition cites case law and statutes in support of its response.

MULLINS, Judge.