In the Interest of A.C., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2151
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of A.C., Minor Child,
M.C., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County,
The Honorable Emily Dean, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

James Beres of James Beres Law Office, Burlington, attorney for
appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Reyna L. Wilkens of Wilkens Law Office, Fort Madison, attorney and
guardian ad litem for minor child.
_______________

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

1
BULLER, Judge.

The father of A.C. appeals from a permanency order placing the child
in guardianship with adult relatives. On our review, we affirm.

Unfortunately for all involved, juvenile-case appellants frequently fail
to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See Iowa Rs. App.
P. 6.1401—Form 5, 6.201(1)(d). This is one such case. The father’s petition
includes a sprinkling of legal citations unmoored from the text and vaguely
asserts disagreement with the juvenile court. The State, relying on our case
law, urges we should conclude the father waived his claims. 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.”). Assuming without deciding we can do anything but
summarily affirm given the briefing, we discern no basis for reversal.

First, the father purports to challenge whether the Iowa Department
of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts to reunify the father
and child. But the father did not timely request additional services below,
which precludes appellate review. See In re L.M., 904 N.W.2d 835, 839–40
(Iowa 2017); In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493–94 (Iowa 2000) (en banc).

Second, the father asserts the child could safely return within six
months. But the juvenile court denied additional time based on the father’s
admitted use of controlled substances, long-term absence from the child’s
life, lack of experience caring for the child, and the child’s wishes. We agree
with these facts and with denying additional time. See Iowa Code
§ 232.104(2)(b) (2025).

AFFIRMED.

2