Opinion
No. 3-216 / 02-0887
Filed April 4, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J. Finn, Judge.
R.J.C. appeals from the entry of a permanent restraining order. APPEAL DISMISSED.
R.J.C., Des Moines, appellant pro se.
Barbara Romar Durden, Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
R.J.C. appeals from the district court's entry of a permanent restraining order. He alleges the court committed numerous errors. We dismiss the appeal.
R.J.C. is the biological father of N.D.R., A.M.R., and E.M.R. In 1994, R.J.C. was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, three counts of exhibition and dissemination of obscene materials, and one count of indecent exposure. As a result, he was sentenced to prison. The juvenile court terminated R.J.C.'s parental rights in 1995. We affirmed termination on appeal. All three children were adopted in 1997. R.J.C. was release from prison in 1999.
In March 2002, the adoptive parents filed an application for a temporary and permanent restraining order against R.J.C. after he attempted to initiate contact with the children. The district court granted a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing on the application for a permanent restraining order. Prior to the hearing, defendant unsuccessfully attempted to subpoena all files and notes relating to the children from their therapist. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order barring R.J.C. from having contact with the children or their adoptive parents. He appeals.
Failure to comply with our rules of appellate procedure can lead to summary disposition of an appeal. See Iowa R.App.P. 6.19(1); Myers v. Sellers, 234 N.W.2d 152, 154 (Iowa 1975). In this appeal, R.J.C. has failed to provide us with any portion of the transcript of the hearing held on the plaintiff's application for a permanent restraining order. In addition, he has failed to state how error was preserved, failed to address our standard of review, and failed to argue and cite authority in support of most of his issues. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.14(1)( c), ( f). Despite the fact R.J.C. is proceeding pro se, "we do not utilize a deferential standard when persons choose to represent themselves." Hays v. Hays, 612 N.W.2d 817, 819 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000); Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). We dismiss R.J.C.'s appeal without reaching its merits.