In the Interest of B.S., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2041
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of B.S., Minor Child,
J.C., Mother,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County,
The Honorable Korie Talkington, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Jean Capdevila, Davenport, attorney for appellant mother.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Lisa Jeanes, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Barbara E. Maness, Davenport, attorney and guardian ad litem for
minor child.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

The mother of B.S. appeals from a juvenile-court ruling terminating
her parental rights. The father’s rights were not terminated.

As we observe in another decision today: “Unfortunately for all
involved, juvenile-case appellants frequently fail to comply with the rules of
appellate procedure.” In re A.C., No. 25-2151, 2026 WL ______, at *1 (Iowa
Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2026). This is another of those cases.

It’s not clear to us what legal argument(s) the mother’s petition
purports to raise. Her issue statement is a run-on sentence without a clear
legal argument beyond suggesting a bridge order and complaining about the
father’s custody of the child—neither of which is the issue before us. The
pages of the petition that follow consist largely of non-sequiturs that vaguely
reference best interests and an unpreserved permissive exception, with no
argument about any positive changes the mother has made since case
inception or any error in the juvenile court’s ruling. In its response, the State
argues the petition’s lack of clarity warrants us finding waiver and affirming
summarily. See, e.g., 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.”). We tend to agree.

To the extent any issue is properly before us, we have reviewed the
entire record—including the transcript of the termination trial—and we
agree with the juvenile court’s detailed seventeen-page ruling terminating
the mother’s parental rights. Termination was in the child’s best interests
given the mother’s dishonesty, inability to regulate her emotions, criminal
history for the physical abuse of other children in her custody (which she
blamed on a past paramour), and her failures to cooperate with court-ordered
services and treatment, progress past fully supervised visits, or address

2
parenting deficits that have been present since termination of her parental
rights to multiple other children. We affirm without further opinion. Iowa Ct.
R. 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.

3