ADIL DAOUD (ADAMS), Petitioner-Appellant, vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-1023 / 06-0238
Filed February 28, 2007
ADIL DAOUD (ADAMS),
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Marsha
Beckelman, Judge.
Adil Daoud appeals the district court’s judicial review ruling. AFFIRMED.
Adil Daoud (Adams), Iowa City, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Barbara E.B. Galloway, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
The Department of Human Services provided transitional child care
benefits to the family of Adil Daoud. As a condition of eligibility, Daoud was
obligated to make monthly co-payments. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-49.27,
.28 (1999). 1
Approximately twenty-two months after Daoud began receiving
these benefits, the Department determined that he was $432 in arrears on his copayments.
Daoud did not agree to satisfy this past-due obligation and the
Department cancelled his benefits.
Following an evidentiary hearing challenging that action, an administrative
law judge concluded that Daoud failed to make “satisfactory arrangements” for
payment within the meaning of rule 49.28.
He affirmed the cancellation of
benefits. The Department subsequently adopted this proposed decision as the
final agency decision.
Daoud sought judicial review, arguing that the agency decision was not
supported by substantial evidence and was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious,
and characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion. 2 The district court affirmed the agency decision.
1
Rule 49.28 states in pertinent part “[e]ach family receiving transitional child care
assistance shall pay the copayment amount determined in [rule 49.27] as a condition of
eligibility for the program.” The rule further states, “[i]f a family does not cooperate in
paying its fee, it shall become ineligible for continued transitional benefits, and it shall
remain ineligible for so long as back fees are owed, unless satisfactory arrangements
are made to make payment.”
2
Daoud challenged the agency action on several grounds. A prior appeal resolved one
of the issues raised by him.
3
On appeal from this ruling, Daoud again argues “the Department wrongly
canceled transitional child care assistance and other benefits.” 3 Like the district
court, we apply the judicial review standards set forth in Iowa Code section
17A.19(10) (2005).
Under those standards, there is no question that the
Department was “clearly vested” with discretion to make legal interpretations and
fact findings and to apply law to fact on the question of Daoud’s eligibility for
transitional child care benefits.
See Iowa Code § 239B.4(4) (authorizing
Department to adopt rules to administer the chapter); City of Marion v. Iowa Dep’t
of Revenue and Fin., 643 N.W.2d 205, 207 (Iowa 2002). 4 The Department did
so, and its views are entitled to deference. Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(c).
Applying the pertinent judicial review standards, we agree with the district
court that Daoud is not entitled to relief.
AFFIRMED.
3
Constitutional issues raised in the present appeal have not been preserved for review.
See Garwick v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 611 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Iowa 2000).
4
Neither party contests the applicability of this statute or the implementing rules to this
agency action.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
