In Re the Marriage of Stacey Margaret Schachtner and Michael Dale Schachtner Upon the Petition of Stacey Margaret Schachtner, N/K/A Stacey Margaret Hergenreter, and Concerning Michael Dale Schachtner
15-2092
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Stacey and Michael divorced in 2008; they share three sons. The youngest, R.S., was 13 at the modification hearing.
- The original decree awarded joint custody, physical care to Stacey, and visitation to Michael.
- In 2014 Stacey moved from Iowa to Colorado with R.S.; since the move they had multiple residences, two school enrollments, and Stacey changed jobs.
- Michael filed to modify physical care in October 2014, alleging Stacey’s relocation and instability, educational neglect, and hostility that undermined his relationship with R.S.
- After a two-day hearing in Sept. 2015, the district court found Michael proved a material change and would better meet R.S.’s needs; it awarded physical care to Michael.
- On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to district-court credibility findings and focusing on the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michael) | Defendant's Argument (Stacey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material and substantial change in circumstances occurred | Stacey’s out-of-state move, multiple residences and schools, and instability justify modification | Modification must be measured from the most recent custody-related order; move alone insufficient or contemplated | Court: Yes — move and resulting instability and parental discord constitute a substantial change since original decree |
| Whether Michael can minister more effectively to R.S.’s needs | Michael’s stable home, steady employment, and ability to address educational issues make him superior custodian | Stacey was primary caregiver historically and R.S. prefers to live with her | Court: Michael demonstrated superior ability to meet R.S.’s current needs, including education and promoting parental contact |
| Weight of the child’s preference | N/A — Michael disputes that the expressed preference reflects true wishes | R.S. stated preference to live with Stacey; Stacey relies on this preference | Court: Child’s preference given limited weight in modification; not dispositive here |
| Relevance of Michael’s past domestic violence | Michael has completed intervention programs and is now fit to parent | Stacey argues past assaults and a no-contact violation make Michael unfit | Court: Past incidents considered but did not outweigh current evidence of Michael’s suitability and Stacey’s undermining behavior |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (standard and de novo review for custody modification)
- Shepard v. Gerholdt, 60 N.W.2d 547 (Iowa 1953) (benchmark for measuring changed circumstances since original decree)
- In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (factors for parental relocation analysis)
- Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002) (parental discord can be a substantial change warranting modification)
- In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (child preference has less weight in modification proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (guidance on awarding appellate attorney fees)