State of Iowa, ex rel A.S.

── State of Iowa, ex rel A.S. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0415 Filed May 13, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, ex rel A.S., Petitioner–Appellee, v. Branden Jerad Nelson, Respondent–Appellant, and Jessica Nicole Fugate, Respondent. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, The Honorable Wyatt Peterson, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Branden Jerad Nelson, Burlington, self-represented appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Andrea Smith Hixon and Gary J. Otting, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee State. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. 1 CHICCHELLY, Judge. Branden Nelson appeals from a support order entered under Iowa Code chapter 252F (2024). He challenges the award of past support and the requirement that he provide health care coverage. Because Nelson has not preserved error on the issues he raises on appeal or presented a record of the proceedings for our review, we affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS This support action concerns A.S., born in 2012. In June 2022, the child’s mother filed a written statement alleging paternity with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services naming Nelson as A.S.’s father. See Iowa Code § 252F.3(1). In December 2024, Iowa Child Support Services (CSS) served Nelson notice that it would seek accrued child support and medical support if it found that Nelson is the child’s father. See id. § 252F.3(1)(c). At Nelson’s request, CSS ordered genetic testing to discover paternity. See id. § 252F.3(6)(a). The results of that testing showed that Nelson could not be excluded as the possible father of A.S. with a 99.9% probability of paternity. See id. § 252F.3(6)(i) (providing that there is a rebuttable presumption of paternity if testing shows the putative father is not excluded and the probability of paternity is ninety-five percent or higher). Nelson asked for a court hearing to decide his support obligation. See id. § 252F.4. The hearing took place in March 2025. Two days later, the court ordered Nelson to pay $548 per month for A.S.’s support. See id. § 252F.5(6) (“[T]he court shall establish the amount of the accrued and accruing child support pursuant to the guidelines established under section 598.21B . . . .”). It also entered judgment for past support of $12,604, ordering Nelson to pay in installments of $54.80 per month beginning on April 1, 2025, until paid in full. See id. Finally, the court ordered Nelson to 2 provide health care coverage under Iowa Code chapter 252E and pay 79% of uncovered medical expenses over $250 up to a maximum of $800 per year. See id. § 252F.5(6) (requiring the court to “establish medical support pursuant to chapter 252E”). Nelson appeals. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We review child support awarded in a paternity action de novo. See Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Iowa 2005); Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1, 4–5 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). On de novo review, we examine the entire record before the district court and decide the issues preserved for appeal anew. Thorpe, 949 N.W.2d at 5. “While we are not bound by the fact- findings of the district court, we give them weight, especially as to credibility determinations.” Id. DISCUSSION Nelson does not cha