State of Iowa, ex rel A.N.

── State of Iowa, ex rel A.N. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0995 Filed May 13, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, ex rel. A.N., Petitioner–Appellee, v. Branden Jerad Nelson, Respondent–Appellant, and Apiphany Jasmin Vance, Respondent. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, The Honorable John M. Wright (support order) and the Honorable Clinton R. Boddicker (post-judgment motions), Judges. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Branden Jerad Nelson, Burlington, self-represented appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Andrea Smith Hixson and Gary J. Otting, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. 1 CHICCHELLY, Judge. Branden Nelson appeals from the order denying his motions to vacate and stay enforcement of an order entered under Iowa Code chapter 252C (2025) and denying his motion to quash the income withholding order. Because Nelson does not provide a valid ground for vacating judgment and his other motions are premised on its success, we affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Nelson is the father of A.N., born in 2023. In April 2025, Iowa Child Support Services (CSS) served Nelson with notice of its intent to obtain an order requiring him to pay ongoing monthly support for A.N. The notice informed Nelson that he could contest the action by requesting a hearing with the district court and informed him of the timeframe for contesting the action. Nelson never requested a hearing, and CSS entered an administrative order in May 2025 requiring Nelson to pay $393 per month in child support and to provide medical support and health care coverage for A.N. The district court found no defects and approved the order. Nelson moved to vacate and stay enforcement of the approval order. Nelson claimed that the order imposes an “extreme financial burden” on him and alleged that the child support guidelines were misapplied because consideration was not given to his existing support obligations. Nelson also moved to quash an income withholding order entered less than one week later. The district court denied Nelson’s motions after a hearing. The court found that Nelson did not allege proper grounds for vacating the judgment under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012, nor did he follow the procedure set out in rule 1.1013. The court observed, 2  The simple fact remains that Nelson had a chance to request a court hearing in this case but did not. In addition, he was properly served with notice of these proceedings, thus protecting his rights of due process, but he chose to sit on his rights and not respond. Accordingly, his Motion to Vacate must be overruled and denied. As for Nelson’s Motion for Stay, Motion to Quash, and Motion to Compel, the Court finds that those motions should be overruled and denied as well. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the ruling on Nelson’s post-judgment motions for correction of errors at law. See State ex rel. Goettsch v. Diacide Distribs., Inc., 596 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 1999). Nelson must show good cause to set aside the judgment. See Hastings v. Espinosa, 340 N.W.2d 603, 607–08 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983). We give the district