Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN THE INTEREST OF J.H.-H., Minor Child, J.H., Father, Appellant.
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 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.
FOOTNOTES
1. The mother does not appeal.
SANDY, Judge.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 25-0236
Decided: June 18, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)