J.W., Father, Appellant. v. << (2019)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (h), (i), and (l) (2018).¹ On appeal, the father simply asserts the court erred in terminating his rights under each of the grounds cited in the termination order. He provides no facts, argument, or analysis in support of his assertions. His failure to do so waives error. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); see also In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo review.”); Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party] might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.”); Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.”). Although we acknowledge termination-of-parental-rights appeals are expedited and the opportunity for briefing is abbreviated, see generally Iowa R. App. P. 6.201, the father’s position is not adequately formulated to facilitate our review. Consequently, we affirm the termination of his parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The mother’s appeal was dismissed by the supreme court as a result of her failure to timely file her petition on appeal.

MULLINS, Judge.