STATE OF IOWA, ex rel., I.M. and S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee,
DARRELL L. McBRIDE, Defendant-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve,
prison inmate appeals a district court order denying his
motion to quash income-withholding orders for back child
support obligations. AFFIRMED.
Darrell L. McBride, Anamosa, self-represented appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin E. Kaufman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor,
McBride, an inmate at the Anamosa State Penitentiary, appeals
the district court's rejection of his motion to quash
income-withholding orders obtained by the Child Support
Recovery Unit (CSRU). On appeal, McBride argues he was denied
due process and equal protection. Because his district court
filings did not advance any constitutional arguments, he did
not preserve those issues for our review. Given the
undeveloped claims, we must affirm.
to this appeal is the fact McBride owes back child support in
two Iowa collection cases. Under Iowa Code chapter 252D
(2003), the CSRU obtained orders in 2003, 2005, and 2006,
determining McBride had a legal obligation to pay child
support and requiring deductions from his income. Those
orders showed arrears for one child (S.M.A., born in 1990)
exceeded $16, 000 (DRCV085194) and arrears for another child
(I.U.M., born in 2005) were $643.83
(DRCV285797). The orders notified McBride that he could
move to quash if he detected an error in the amount being
than a decade later, in 2016, McBride started a prison
sentence he estimates will last between six and thirty years.
In January 2018, McBride moved to quash the
income-withholding orders. In his motions, filed without an
attorney, he acknowledged owing back child support. But he
highlighted his "income restrictions" by attaching
printouts showing he received only $15.77 per month in prison
wages. In a second filing, McBride wrote he had done some
legal research and "found that my payments could be
lowered to $5 a month."
CSRU resisted McBride's motions to quash, maintaining the
income-withholding orders complied with state law and
administrative rules. See generally State ex rel.
Lankford v. Allbee, 544 N.W.2d 639, 641 (Iowa 1996)
(explaining amendment to Iowa Code section 904.702 (1994)
"changed the law and requires the director to do what he
was not permitted to do previously-deduct monies from an
inmate's institutional allowance to pay the inmate's
child support obligations"). The CSRU resistance
emphasized its order instructed the employer not to withhold
more than fifty percent of McBride's net disposable
same time, the CSRU agreed the Iowa Administrative Code (IAC)
allows for a "hardship review" of monthly
withholding amounts. But the CSRU countered McBride's
motion by noting, "As far as the IAC allowing payments
to be lowered to $5.00, what the IAC actually provides is
that, if hardship criteria are met, the monthly payment would
be no lower than $5.00." See Iowa Admin. Code
r. 441-98.24(1)(c)(2) (2018).
district court denied McBride's motion to quash for the
reasons outlined by the CSRU. McBride appeals.
appeal raised a question of how to construe the withholding
provisions of Iowa Code section 252D.1 (2003), we would
review for the correction of legal error. See
Allbee, 544 N.W.2d at 640 ("[E]ven in cases tried
in equity, our review of the construction of statutes is at
law."). If we could reach McBride's constitutional
claims, we would review de novo. See State v.
Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 200 (Iowa 2002).
must reject McBride's claims he was denied due process
and equal protection "for want of preservation."
See Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa
1998). "Even issues implicating constitutional rights
must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in
order to preserve error for appeal." In re
K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003). Because McBride did
not object to the withholding ...