IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1004

Filed March 8, 2017

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JESSE BRYAN HELGELAND

AND AMY ELIZABETH HELGELAND

Upon the Petition of

JESSE BRYAN HELGELAND,

Petitioner-Appellant,

And Concerning

AMY ELIZABETH HELGELAND, n/k/a AMY ELIZABETH MOYER,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen D. 

Weiland, Judge.

Jesse Helgeland appeals the district court’s modification of the decree 

dissolving his marriage to Amy Moyer. AFFIRMED.

Jesse Bryan Helgeland, Rockford, appellant pro se.

Amy Moyer, Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, appellee pro se.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2

DOYLE, Judge.

Jesse Helgeland and Amy Helgeland (now known as Moyer) divorced in 

2008. Two children were born of the marriage, and the parties agreed and the 

district court approved that Jesse would have physical custody of the children. 

In 2016, Amy filed a petition for modification of the decree, asserting there 

had been a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the 

children’s physical placement from Jesse to her. Among other things, Amy 

stated she no longer resided in Iowa. Amy believed physical placement in her 

care was in their children’s best interests. 

Following a trial on the petition, the district court concluded Amy 

established there had been a substantial change in circumstances necessitating 

modification of the custodial provisions to place the children in Amy’s physical 

care. The court explained:

First, [Amy’s] move necessitates a modification of visitation terms at 

minimum. Additionally, the living conditions at Jesse’s home and 

the children’s mental and emotional well-being have deteriorated 

since the most recent custodial order. I ascribe no malice or illintent to Jesse, but I believe he is overwhelmed with handling work, 

housework, and the needs of the children and himself. In any 

event, while stability is generally in a child’s well-being, the 

circumstances here lead me to conclude that a change to Amy’s 

household will maximize these children’s best interests in the long 

run. 

Jesse appeals the court’s ruling, pro se, alleging the court’s ruling was 

“outside of the rule of law and for reasons of retribution.” He contends that

because the district court ruled against him, the court’s decision was punitive in 

nature. Jesse also claims the children “were flourishing in [his] care.” However, 

the record Jesse provided does not support his allegations.
3

The rules of appellate procedure require that “[i]f the appellant intends to 

urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is 

contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of 

all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.803. “It is 

the appellant’s duty to provide a record on appeal affirmatively disclosing the

alleged error relied upon,” and we will “not speculate as to what took place or 

predicate error on such speculation.” In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134, 135 (Iowa 

2005); see also In re Marriage of Ricklefs, 726 N.W.2d 359, 362 (Iowa 2007). 

The few pages of the modification-trial transcript he provided in his appendix do 

not support his claims. Because Jesse has failed to present a proper record on 

appeal, we affirm the decision of the district court. See F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d at 

136 (“Therefore, we must affirm the decision of the district court because F.W.S. 

has failed to present a proper record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.