IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0642 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M. and T.M., Minor Children,
K.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
Judge.
A mother appeals from a child-in-need-of-assistance dispositional order.
AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Robin O’Brien-Licht, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) dispositional
order concerning E.M. (born 2020) and T.M. (born 2022). Finding the mother
waived her claim for failure to cite legal authority and otherwise comply with the
rules of appellate procedure, and concluding we would not provide relief even if
the claim were fully briefed, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The mother has a lengthy history with the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). In total, the mother has been the subject of more than
twenty child abuse assessments, at least seven of which related to the children at
issue in this appeal. The general subjects of the prior assessments involved
substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of supervision, and unsanitary
conditions. In January 2020, the mother’s parental rights to two older children were
terminated.
E.M. and T.M. both tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at birth.
Both children also tested positive at least once for THC or marijuana while in the
mother’s care. And there were reports the mother was using marijuana while
caring for them.
In 2024, police and HHS responded to the family home based in part on
reports the mother was using marijuana around the children. Police smelled
marijuana from the door, and the mother denied them entry to her room or the
upstairs of the house. Police eventually obtained a search warrant and found a
marijuana roach where the children would have access to it and additional
marijuana in the mother’s bedroom. The HHS worker described “at least a week 3
of urine and dog feces in the upstairs of the residence” and noted “[a]s many
animals that could be found were removed from the home.” HHS returned a
founded abuse assessment for the mother’s failure to provide proper supervision.
And animal-neglect charges were filed regarding the pets’ living conditions.
Another concern was the mother’s on-again off-again relationship with the
father, who perpetrated domestic violence against the mother and these children.
The father was charged with offenses relating to domestic violence and child
endangerment and no-contact orders were entered but no convictions followed—
in part due to the mother’s lack of cooperation with law enforcement. Despite the
mother’s “dozens of reports” regarding domestic violence and her telling others the
children were afraid of the father, the mother has suggested the father move into
her home and care for the children. And she communicates with him nightly and
lets him use her vehicle.
HHS also had significant concerns about the mother’s mental health. A
2018 mental-health evaluation showed multiple diagnoses and a more recent
evaluation showed at least one. The consistent diagnosis was post-traumatic
disorder (PTSD), and the record contains no explanation why some of the previous
diagnoses—which tend to be chronic—were no longer listed in 2018. The mother’s
history also included mental-health hospitalizations both as a child and adult. And
an earlier termination order documented similar struggles with mental health and
unhealthy relationships.
The children were adjudicated CINA based on concerns regarding
substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and unsanitary conditions in
the home. At the dispositional hearing, an HHS worker stressed that the children 4
did not have the capacity to protect themselves from dangers created by the
mother’s mental-health problems or association with the father and his history of
domestic violence. And the worker explained that, during meetings between her
and the mother, the mother would “kind of place blame on others for the way things
are or for what’s happened.”
The mother stressed that she had stopped using medical marijuana, had
since then been compliant with drug-testing, and had been working on her mental
health. She also said she had cleaned her house thoroughly. She acknowledged
her long history with HHS and prior terminations and relayed a vow that she “would
not make the same mistakes as [she] did with [her] older kids, and [she] would
learn from what [she] had dealt with.” She also confirmed the father’s history of
domestic abuse but claimed she did not “view [him] as an abuser” or fear future
domestic violence. The juvenile court expressed concerns about the mother’s
honesty and her ability to maintain her positive changes.
For his part, the father admitted at the dispositional hearing he had
previously lied to the court and falsely denied his intent to reignite the relationship.
And he testified that he thought the children missed the mother. The juvenile court
also expressed concerns about the father’s honesty, as well as his history of
domestic violence with other women.
At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, HHS recommended the
children be placed with the father under the protective supervision of the
department assuming he did not move back in with the mother. The court orally
ordered custody be placed with HHS for purposes of family foster care, that the
mother participate in random-drug testing and manage her mental health, and that 5
she obtain a new psychological evaluation to address discrepancies between the
2018 evaluation and current treatment. The court also emphasized the case’s ups
and downs:
The Court has seen this case cycle through several times. The relationship [between mother and father] cycling through several times is concerning. These children don’t need to have a revolving door in their life, and so the Court’s not going to grant discretion [for visits] too quickly because these are long-lasting situations that have been going on for a long time.
And the court recognized that the mother had made steps toward providing a safe
and stable home for the children. But this was tempered by an observation there
was much work yet to do and colored by the mother’s past involvement with HHS.
The juvenile court noted both “parents have historically been very non-compliant
with expectations and services” and the mother “historically lacks any acceptance
of responsibility for any situation, but chooses to blame others for lying or
professionals for being ‘incompetent’ and not handling things correctly.” The court
opined the children “do not need to spend their lives in the chaos of their parents’
dysfunctional relationship, exposed to substance use and unsanitary conditions.”
And the court confirmed removal and placement with HHS in its dispositional order,
finding it likely the children would “be exposed to substance use, domestic
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0642 Filed July 24, 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M. and T.M., Minor Children,
K.M., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley,
Judge.
A mother appeals from a child-in-need-of-assistance dispositional order.
AFFIRMED.
David R. Fiester, Cedar Rapids, for appellant mother.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Robin O’Brien-Licht, Cedar Rapids, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor
children.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2
BULLER, Judge.
The mother appeals a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) dispositional
order concerning E.M. (born 2020) and T.M. (born 2022). Finding the mother
waived her claim for failure to cite legal authority and otherwise comply with the
rules of appellate procedure, and concluding we would not provide relief even if
the claim were fully briefed, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The mother has a lengthy history with the Iowa Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). In total, the mother has been the subject of more than
twenty child abuse assessments, at least seven of which related to the children at
issue in this appeal. The general subjects of the prior assessments involved
substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of supervision, and unsanitary
conditions. In January 2020, the mother’s parental rights to two older children were
terminated.
E.M. and T.M. both tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at birth.
Both children also tested positive at least once for THC or marijuana while in the
mother’s care. And there were reports the mother was using marijuana while
caring for them.
In 2024, police and HHS responded to the family home based in part on
reports the mother was using marijuana around the children. Police smelled
marijuana from the door, and the mother denied them entry to her room or the
upstairs of the house. Police eventually obtained a search warrant and found a
marijuana roach where the children would have access to it and additional
marijuana in the mother’s bedroom. The HHS worker described “at least a week 3
of urine and dog feces in the upstairs of the residence” and noted “[a]s many
animals that could be found were removed from the home.” HHS returned a
founded abuse assessment for the mother’s failure to provide proper supervision.
And animal-neglect charges were filed regarding the pets’ living conditions.
Another concern was the mother’s on-again off-again relationship with the
father, who perpetrated domestic violence against the mother and these children.
The father was charged with offenses relating to domestic violence and child
endangerment and no-contact orders were entered but no convictions followed—
in part due to the mother’s lack of cooperation with law enforcement. Despite the
mother’s “dozens of reports” regarding domestic violence and her telling others the
children were afraid of the father, the mother has suggested the father move into
her home and care for the children. And she communicates with him nightly and
lets him use her vehicle.
HHS also had significant concerns about the mother’s mental health. A
2018 mental-health evaluation showed multiple diagnoses and a more recent
evaluation showed at least one. The consistent diagnosis was post-traumatic
disorder (PTSD), and the record contains no explanation why some of the previous
diagnoses—which tend to be chronic—were no longer listed in 2018. The mother’s
history also included mental-health hospitalizations both as a child and adult. And
an earlier termination order documented similar struggles with mental health and
unhealthy relationships.
The children were adjudicated CINA based on concerns regarding
substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and unsanitary conditions in
the home. At the dispositional hearing, an HHS worker stressed that the children 4
did not have the capacity to protect themselves from dangers created by the
mother’s mental-health problems or association with the father and his history of
domestic violence. And the worker explained that, during meetings between her
and the mother, the mother would “kind of place blame on others for the way things
are or for what’s happened.”
The mother stressed that she had stopped using medical marijuana, had
since then been compliant with drug-testing, and had been working on her mental
health. She also said she had cleaned her house thoroughly. She acknowledged
her long history with HHS and prior terminations and relayed a vow that she “would
not make the same mistakes as [she] did with [her] older kids, and [she] would
learn from what [she] had dealt with.” She also confirmed the father’s history of
domestic abuse but claimed she did not “view [him] as an abuser” or fear future
domestic violence. The juvenile court expressed concerns about the mother’s
honesty and her ability to maintain her positive changes.
For his part, the father admitted at the dispositional hearing he had
previously lied to the court and falsely denied his intent to reignite the relationship.
And he testified that he thought the children missed the mother. The juvenile court
also expressed concerns about the father’s honesty, as well as his history of
domestic violence with other women.
At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, HHS recommended the
children be placed with the father under the protective supervision of the
department assuming he did not move back in with the mother. The court orally
ordered custody be placed with HHS for purposes of family foster care, that the
mother participate in random-drug testing and manage her mental health, and that 5
she obtain a new psychological evaluation to address discrepancies between the
2018 evaluation and current treatment. The court also emphasized the case’s ups
and downs:
The Court has seen this case cycle through several times. The relationship [between mother and father] cycling through several times is concerning. These children don’t need to have a revolving door in their life, and so the Court’s not going to grant discretion [for visits] too quickly because these are long-lasting situations that have been going on for a long time.
And the court recognized that the mother had made steps toward providing a safe
and stable home for the children. But this was tempered by an observation there
was much work yet to do and colored by the mother’s past involvement with HHS.
The juvenile court noted both “parents have historically been very non-compliant
with expectations and services” and the mother “historically lacks any acceptance
of responsibility for any situation, but chooses to blame others for lying or
professionals for being ‘incompetent’ and not handling things correctly.” The court
opined the children “do not need to spend their lives in the chaos of their parents’
dysfunctional relationship, exposed to substance use and unsanitary conditions.”
And the court confirmed removal and placement with HHS in its dispositional order,
finding it likely the children would “be exposed to substance use, domestic
violence, and [the parents’] unstable mental health” otherwise.
The mother appeals, but the father does not.
II. Standard of Review
“We review CINA proceedings de novo.” In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36, 40
(Iowa 2014). “In reviewing the proceedings, we are not bound by the juvenile
court’s fact findings; however, we do give them weight.” Id. 6
III. Discussion
The mother’s petition on appeal includes exactly two citations to authority,
both establishing the standard of review. The remainder of the petition is bereft of
any citation of legal authority—no cases, statutes, or anything else. There is no
heading devoted to “the legal issues presented for review,” though there are
perhaps a few sentences of unsupported legal argument toward the end of the
filing. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1401—Form 5, § 8 (requiring a section that “[s]tate[s]
the legal issues presented for appeal” and “state[s] 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 petition on appeal”). Although we are sympathetic to the
expedited deadlines faced by juvenile attorneys in these cases, we cannot say the
petition filed by the mother here comes close to satisfying the rules of appellate
procedure and the requirement to cite legal authority. See id. (requiring
“supporting legal authority for each issue raised” and admonishing that “[g]eneral
conclusions, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not supported by law or the facts’
are not acceptable”); Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in
support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”). It is difficult to imagine
a way we can review this appeal without—to one extent or another—undertaking
the mother’s legal research and advocacy for her. And we are forbidden from
doing so. See 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.”); see also King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1, 48 (Iowa 2012) (Wiggins, J., 7
dissenting) (“Our law clerks and judges should not be doing the work of
counsel . . . .”). We therefore summarily affirm this CINA appeal.
But we note, in the interests of completeness, we would have affirmed on
the merits if we were permitted or inclined to shore up the mother’s factual
argument with legal authorities. As best we can tell, her core contention is that “all
concerns regarding [her ability to provide a safe and stable home] were addressed
and were well under control by the time of disposition.” Suffice to say, if we
reached the merits we would be convinced on our de novo review that—at
minimum—the concerns regarding domestic violence remain unresolved and
justify continued removal from the mother and custody with HHS given the
mother’s inability to recognize the danger posed by a domestic abuser, her
unwillingness to end her relationship with the father, and her failure to demonstrate
protective capacity for these children. See Iowa Code § 232.102(4)(a) (2024).