In the Interest of A.T., A.T., and S.K.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21-0720 Filed August 4, 2021 IN THE INTEREST OF A.T., A.T., and S.K., Minor Children, A.T., Mother, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED. John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Joseph W. Kertels of Juvenile Law Center, Sioux City, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor children. Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ. 2 MULLINS, Presiding Judge. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children. On appeal, the mother only passively argues the State failed to meet its burden for termination and states her disagreement with the juvenile court’s findings. She offers no meaningful substantive argument to facilitate appellate review, so we affirm without further opinion, deeming the arguments waived. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d) (“The petition on appeal shall substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401.”); 6.1401–Form 5 (“[S]tate 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 position on appeal. . . . General conclusions, such as ‘the trial court’s ruling is not supported by law or the facts’ are not acceptable.”); see also 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.”); Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party] might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.”); 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.”); cf. 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). AFFIRMED.
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.
