Opinion
No. 1-941 / 00-2035.
Filed February 6, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, DOUGLAS S. RUSSELL, Judge.
Debra Ties appeals the district court decision setting Vaude Wilford's child support obligation for their minor child. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Karla Wolff, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Benjamin W. Blackstock of Blackstock Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by HAYDEN, P.J., and C. PETERSON and HARRIS, S.J.
Senior judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
On December 11, 1999, Deborah Ties gave birth to Drew M. Ties. She informed the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) Vaude Wilford was the father of the child. Vaude and Deborah were each served with DHS's notice of intent to establish paternity and support. In the notice served upon Deborah she was informed she had not been named as a party to this action. The notice informed her:
To become a party and have the right to be notified of all upcoming actions, you must intervene as a party to this action. To intervene, you must file a petition of intervention with the district court. If for any reason you do not understand this notice, please contact the person listed below, or consult an attorney.
DHS started this administrative action to establish paternity and support pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 252F. Vaude admitted paternity and counter-claimed naming Deborah as counter-respondent for custody and visitation rights. The State moved to strike or dismiss respondent's counter-claim on the ground proceedings under chapter 252F are for the sole purpose of establishing paternity and any accrued or accruing child support or medical support obligations. Iowa Code § 252F.2 (1999). In addition, this code section sets forth that "issues in addition to the establishment of paternity or support obligations shall not be addressed in proceedings initiated under this chapter." Id. The State's motion was granted and the trial was held on the issue of child support only.
Deborah and Vaude are employed by Penford Products Company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Deborah earns $1870 per month. Vaude's average net monthly income for child support purposes has been $1380.67. Recently he accepted a new job on the first shift which would give him an average net monthly income for child support purposes of $1,212.53. He was to commence this new job one week after the hearing before the trial court. He pays $892 per month in child support for two children from a prior marriage.
Vaude's new job will allow him more time to be with his children. He will have more job security than his previous position, where reductions in the work force were under way. The trial court recognized the new job entailed a reduction of income, but it was a better job because it was a day time job with more regular hours. The court also found Vaude's job change is not made for the purpose of a voluntary reduction of his income to affect child support or to avoid his child support obligation.
The trial court ordered the respondent to pay $272.81 per month child support for the child. The support payments will terminate when the child graduates from high school or reaches age eighteen, whichever occurs sooner. The State does not appeal. Deborah Ties attempts to appeal.
Our review of this equity case is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 4.
First we address the issue of whether Deborah has standing to bring this appeal. DHS's notice to Deborah to establish paternity and support advised her she had not been named as a party to the action, and stated to become a party she needed to intervene. She never filed a petition of intervention.
Vaude cites the case Rozmus v. Rozmus, 595 N.W.2d 893, 897 (Neb. 1999), which involved the issue of whether an agency called Policies Studies, Inc. (PSI) had the right to appeal a decision involving the Nebraska department of social services when the department did not appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court held standing is a jurisdictional component of a party's case because only a party who has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court. Rozmus, 595 N.W.2d at 897. PSI lacked standing to appeal on its own behalf. Id. at 898. Thus, the court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of PSI's appeals. Id.
A person does not become a party of record merely because his or her name and interest appear in documents filed with the court or are referenced in the judgment. In re Joseph G., 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 915, 916-17 (Cal.Ct.App. 2000). Vaude claims this appeal should be dismissed because Deborah has no standing to bring this appeal.
Deborah claims she is a party to this action and therefore has a right to appeal. Deborah presents an extensive argument in her reply brief, however, she does not cite any authority for her position. Failure in the brief to state, to argue, or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed wavier of that issue. Iowa R. App. P.14(a)(3) (emphasis added). We determine Deborah has no standing to bring this appeal and she has waived this issue. This court is without jurisdiction to decide Debra's appeal.
Costs of this appeal are taxed to Debra Ties.
This appeal is dismissed.