Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-2152 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ Kayla Cheyenne Bray, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Austin Ryan Guillen, Defendant–Appellee. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, The Honorable DeDra Schroeder, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Kayla Cheyenne Bray, Manly, self-represented appellant. Austin Ryan Guillen, Elk City, Oklahoma, self-represented appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. 1 SCHUMACHER, Judge. Kayla Bray appeals the dismissal of her custody petition against Austin Guillen, asserting the district court erred in dismissing the petition prior to the court ordered deadline to complete service of process. Upon our review, we affirm the district court. Bray filed a petition for custody and visitation on July 17, 2025. On October 17, 2025, Bray moved to allow additional time to serve Guillen. The district court granted the motion on October 22, extending the deadline to file proof of service to December 15, 2025. On December 16, 2025, Bray filed an additional motion for extension, stating the sheriff’s office was “having a hard time locating [Guillen] currently.” That same day, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice.1 It appears from the record and Bray’s briefing that she mistakenly believed the district court set the extension deadline for December 17, 2025. But the court’s order dated October 22, 2025, indicated that the deadline to serve Guillen and file proof of service was December 15, 2025. Bray missed the deadline to complete service and file proof of the same. On appeal, Bray failed to cite any relevant authority to support her claim. So, Bray has forfeited her legal argument. See State v. Jackson, 4 N.W.3d 298, 311 (Iowa 2024). We recognize that Bray has been representing herself. Yet we do not have a double standard for those represented by counsel and those who are unrepresented—we expect all to follow our procedures. See Metro. Jacobson Dev. Venture v. Bd. of Rev., 476 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). But here we elect to bypass the procedural issue 1 Proof of service filed on December 23 indicated Guillen was served on December 16. Bray never moved to have the court reconsider the dismissal. 2 and reach the merits. On this record, such bypass does not benefit Bray. Because Bray did not timely serve Guillen and file proof of timely service by the imposed deadline, we affirm the district court’s dismissal without prejudice. Iowa Rs. Civ. P. 1.302., 1.305. AFFIRMED. 3