C.H., Mother, Appellant. v. << (2022)

The mother appeals the entry of a bridge order closing the child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding and transferring jurisdiction over custody and care of her child to the district court. The mother's petition on appeal only asserts she “has a strong bond with the child and is a more suitable custodian for the child than the child's father. It is in the best interests of the child to be in the primary physical care of her mother.” These bare, conclusory statements provide no guidance as to the procedural, legal, or factual nature of her claim. She cites no authority and points to no facts or evidence supporting her appeal. Therefore, we are unable to identify a properly presented issue on appeal. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.201(1)(d) (“The petition on appeal shall substantially comply with form 5 in rule 6.1401.”); 6.1401–Form 5 (“[S]tate what findings of fact or conclusions of law the district court made with which you disagree and why, generally referencing a particular part of the record, witnesses’ testimony, or exhibits that support your position on appeal․ General conclusions, such as ‘the trial court's ruling is not supported by law or the facts’ are not acceptable.”); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring arguments in briefs to contain reasoning, citations to authorities, and references to pertinent parts of the record); Venckus v. City of Iowa City, 930 N.W.2d 792, 806 (Iowa 2019) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for [meritorious] truffles buried in [the record].” (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991))). We affirm without further opinion.

AFFIRMED.

AHLERS, Judge.