Denson v. Capps
20-0774
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background:
- Parents unmarried; child S.C. born December 2012; parties entered stipulated joint legal and joint physical care decree in 2015 and modified parenting schedule in 2017.
- Denson married in 2018; his wife provided regular caregiving while Denson worked; Denson filed to modify physical care in August 2018.
- After a two-day hearing (Aug. 2019), the district court (Apr. 2020) found material and substantial changes since the 2017 decree and awarded primary physical care to Denson, with visitation to Capps.
- Changes cited: Denson’s marriage and dispute over stepmother’s role, deterioration of co-parenting, and Capps’ residential instability (multiple moves, living with extended family).
- School-attendance records showed significant absences during periods S.C. was with Capps but substantially fewer absences while with Denson; the court emphasized consistency and stability as critical.
- Capps appealed; appellate court affirmed the modification and denied Capps’ request for appellate attorney fees (non-prevailing party).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Denson) | Defendant's Argument (Capps) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances since the 2017 modification | There were substantial, material changes (marriage, co-parenting breakdown, instability) justifying modification | Capps effectively conceded a change; otherwise disputed | Court found a material and substantial change warranted modification |
| Whether Denson proved superior ability to minister to S.C.’s wellbeing to justify awarding him primary physical care | Denson argued he provides greater stability, consistency (including school attendance) and a stable household | Capps argued joint care should remain and raised sibling-preservation concerns and that differences in parenting styles are not dispositive | Court held Denson met his burden to show superior ability and awarded physical care to him |
| Impact of sibling relationships (keeping children together) | Denson noted S.C. has half-siblings on both sides; stability outweighs sibling-placement concerns | Capps argued award would reduce S.C.’s time with Capps’s other children | Court found sibling-separation factor not determinative given other considerations favoring Denson |
| Request for appellate attorney fees by Capps | N/A (Capps sought fees) | Capps requested fees on appeal | Denied — Capps was not the prevailing party on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Davis-Spurling, 541 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1995) (equitable custody proceedings reviewed de novo but district court findings entitled to weight)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (appellate court reviews entire record in custody modifications)
- Hensch v. Mysak, 902 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (deference to district court factual findings for institutional and pragmatic reasons)
- Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002) (substantial change and need to designate primary caregiver when joint custody no longer workable)
- In re Marriage of Jacobo, 526 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 1995) (modification requires substantial change affecting child’s welfare)
- In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (party seeking primary physical care must show superior ability to minister to child’s wellbeing)
- In re Marriage of Orte, 389 N.W.2d 373 (Iowa 1986) (court’s interest in keeping children of broken homes together as a custody consideration)
- In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (best-interest standard allows case-by-case flexibility for custody determinations)