In the Interest of J.H.-H., Minor Child
This text of In the Interest of J.H.-H., Minor Child (In the Interest of J.H.-H., Minor Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of J.H.-H., Minor Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jh-h-minor-child-iowactapp-2025.