Opinion
No. 09-0784.
August 6, 2009.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child. AFFIRMED.
Michael H. Bandy of Bandy Law Office, Waterloo, for appellant father.
Sara Kersenbrock, Waterloo, for appellant mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine S. Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Kathleen Hahn, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Linnea Nicol, Waterloo, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and EISENHAUER and DOYLE, JJ.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child. On appeal, the father states, "The District Court erred in terminating the parental rights of the mother." The mother makes two arguments: (1) "The Juvenile Court erred in terminating the parental rights of the mother"; and (2) "The Juvenile Court erred in not appointing current custodians as Guardians of the minor child." They contend error was preserved on these issues "in that all hearings were contested and a timely notice of appeal was filed in this matter." They cite supporting authority that states general propositions, such as the scope of review, the weight given the juvenile court's findings of fact, and that the primary interest in termination proceedings is the best interests of the child. Nothing more is set forth.
Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1)( d) (2009) sets forth what a petition on appeal of termination of parental rights proceedings must include. It states the petition shall substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401. Iowa R. App. P. 6.201(1)( d). This form states in pertinent part, "The issue statement should be concise in nature setting forth specific legal questions. General, conclusory statements such as `the juvenile court's ruling is not supported by law or the facts' are not acceptable." Iowa R. App. P. 6.1401 (emphasis added). Here, both parents simply make general, conclusory statements on appeal. Their failure to make an argument is deemed a waiver of that argument. As our overriding goal is to determine the best interest of the child, In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992), upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude clear and convincing evidence supports termination of their parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm.
Prior to 2009, this language was contained in what was then rule 6.151(2)( d).