In the Interest of R.H., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1341
Filed January 27, 2022
IN THE INTEREST OF R.H.,
Minor Child,
C.H., Mother,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O'Brien County, David C. Larson,
District Associate Judge.
A mother appeals the bridge order transferring jurisdiction from the juvenile
court to district court. AFFIRMED.
Dianne Wallwey of Law Office of Dianne Wallwey, Spencer, for appellant
mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Shannon Sandy, attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
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.