In the Interest of R.K., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-1491
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-1491 Filed December 17, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF R.K., Minor Child,

S.K., Father, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol,

Judge.

A father appeals a permanency review order. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey E. Clements, Spirit Lake, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Kimberly S. Lange (until withdrawal), Waterloo, and Sandra Diane Clasen

Benzschawel, Decorah, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and

Ahlers, JJ. 2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

R.K., born in 2016, was in her parents’ shared physical care until March

2024, when she was removed from the father’s custody after he killed her pet

bunny and encouraged her to make false reports of sexual abuse by the mother’s

boyfriend. The following month, the father consented to the child’s adjudication as

a child in need of assistance (CINA). The Iowa Department of Health and Human

Services initiated a case plan to address the issues leading to removal. By March

2025, the department reported the father had “begun to take steps to get himself

the appropriate help that he needs for his mental health” and was on track to

reunification. The department recommended a six-month extension, which the

court granted.

Over the next few months, the father filed a flurry of pro se motions and

notices.1 A permanency review hearing took place in June 2025. The court

addressed and denied many of the father’s motions at the outset of the hearing.2

The court then stated:

[Y]ou have not appealed the adjudication or the disposition or any of those issues. And in fact, [father], the record is that I have—I have granted every request that you have made regarding services. I have extended permanency at our last hearing, I gave you additional time. I understand that your perception of what has happened here

1 These included a motion to compel, motion to stay all proceedings, motion to

correct the record, motion to recuse the presiding judge, motion to enforce disqualification, motion to vacate all orders issued by a disqualified judge, notice of jurisdictional freeze and improper court-appointed special advocate (CASA) filing, motion to strike, motion to disqualify the prosecutor and refer for oversight review, motion to remove fraudulently appointed counsel, notice of pro se election and controlled counsel participation, motion to remove guardian ad litem for misconduct, notice of Americans with Disabilities Act requests, motion of preservation of rights and statement regarding prior counsel, and motion for written ruling. 2 The court’s written order denied all pending motions. 3

is different than mine. You are on track for reunification. The report that you objected to recommends moving forward with that.

The father requested court-ordered services and funds for mental-health

treatment and prescriptions to treat his Autism diagnosis, explaining he did not

qualify for Title 19 or insurance through his employment and he was unable to pay

for the services out of pocket. The State concurred “the father’s mental health has

declined since he stopped getting mental-health treatment and medication.” The

court ordered the department to prioritize the issue “fast” because “prior to this

lapse, I was getting really great reports about how everything was going. We were

full steam ahead to 50/50, and now we’re in this place where we’re kind of having

trouble, because you’re not getting—able to access the services you need

because [of] money.” In August, the court entered a permanency review order

reiterating its findings.

The father appealed from the permanency review order. He challenges the

court’s April 2024 adjudication of R.K. as a child in need of assistance pursuant to

Iowa Code section 232.96A(3)(a) and (b) (2024). Yet the father consented to the

child’s adjudication under those grounds. “Because the [fa]ther did not contest the

adjudication, we do not address the propriety of the CINA adjudication in this

appeal.” In re K.A., No. 22-1167, 2022 WL 16985688, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 17,

2022) (declining to address the mother’s challenge to a CINA adjudication where

she stated, “I’m okay with adjudication”); see also In re M.A.F., 679 N.W.2d 683,

685 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (“Under our rules of civil procedure, an issue which is not

raised before the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”). 4

The father also claims he was “denied fair and impartial court and

participants” by the court’s denial of his motions. Aside from his bare assertion

and a list of the challenged motions, the father offers no accompanying argument

or reference to the record to support this claim. We find his claim waived. See

L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699, 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (“Where a party has

failed to present any substantive analysis or argument on an issue, the issue has

been waived.”). Accordingly, we affirm the permanency review order.

AFFIRMED.