In the Interest of J.H.-H., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0236
Filed June 18, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.-H.,
Minor Child,

J.H., Father,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County,

Patrick J. McAvan, Judge.

A father appeals the juvenile court’s bridge order transferring jurisdiction

over the custody, physical care, and visitation of his child to the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Rebecca L. Petig of Bierman & Petig, P.C., Grinnell, attorney and guardian

ad litem for minor child.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and

Sandy, JJ.
2

SANDY, Judge.

The father of J.H.-H. appeals from the juvenile court bridge order

transferring jurisdiction over the custody, physical care, and visitation of the child

to the district court.1 That order placed the child in the joint legal custody of the

mother and father, awarding the mother physical care with the father being granted

“frequent and liberal visitation.”

On appeal, the father seeks to set aside the bridge order, arguing the order

“provide[s] no criteria for him to be able to get visitation which would be more

similar to the visitation a non-custodial parent would have.” The father raises two

issues on appeal, arguing the juvenile court erred in (1) issuing a bridge order

rather than a “family custody and visitation order,” and (2) “granting such limited

visitation.”

In his petition, the father provides no “[s]upporting legal authority” for his

claims, no statements on how error was preserved on appeal, and no explanation

of the “findings of fact or conclusions of law with which [he] disagree[s].” See Iowa

R. App. P. 6.1401—Form 5; see also Iowa R. App P. 6.201(1)(d) (requiring “[t]he

petition on appeal [to] substantially comply with rule 6.1401—Form 5”). And

although we will, in child welfare cases, “[do] our best to address the issues

presented without undertaking the father’s research and advocacy for him,” the

father has not provided even “a few legal citations” or “quotes from the juvenile

court ruling;” he has simply provided “a statement that he ‘disagrees.’” See In re

A.G., No. 24-1908, 2025 WL 707099, at *2 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2025); see

1 The mother does not appeal.
3

also In re J.W., No. 18-2218, 2019 WL 719056, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019)

(deeming a father’s failure to “provide[] . . . facts, argument, or analysis in support

of his assertions” to have “waive[d] error”).

“The father’s position is not adequately formulated to facilitate our review.”

J.W., 2019 WL 719056, at *1. We thus affirm the juvenile court’s bridge order.

AFFIRMED.