In Re the Marriage of Kelly Diischer and Kyle Diischer Upon the Petition of Kelly Wood F/K/A Diischer, and Concerning Kyle Diischer, 15-2103

Kelly Wood (f/k/a Diischer) and Kyle Diischer dissolved their marriage by stipulated decree in 2013, agreeing to joint custody and shared physical care of their two children.
Post-decree, the parents were unable to successfully implement the shared-care arrangement; the parties stipulated there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.
Kyle petitioned for modification in 2014 seeking physical care; Kelly counterclaimed seeking physical care as well.
Kyle planned to relocate with his current wife due to her job transfer; the district court considered this and other post-decretal conduct.
The district court awarded physical care to Kyle and liberal visitation to Kelly; Kelly appealed the physical-care determination and sought remand for child support calculation and attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial change in circumstances existed to permit modification	Kelly acknowledged/specified the parties stipulated a substantial change (post-decree breakdown of shared care)	Kyle maintained change warranted modification	Parties stipulated change; record supports stipulation, so modification permitted
Which parent should be awarded physical care	Kelly argued she should retain or receive physical care	Kyle argued he should receive physical care given post-decree realities and planned move	Court awarded physical care to Kyle; appellate court affirmed as supported by whole record
Standard of review / deference to trial court	Kelly challenged specific findings and weight given to factors	Kyle relied on district court’s factual findings and discretion	Appellate review is de novo but gives some deference to trial court’s specific findings; affirmed decision
Whether remand needed for child support or attorney fees	Kelly requested remand for child support calculation and sought attorney fees if physical care reversed	Kyle argued no remand needed if physical care award affirmed	Because physical care determination was affirmed, court did not address child support or attorney-fee claims

In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (standard for showing substantial change to modify decree)
In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (de novo review in equity cases)
In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1995) (weight afforded trial court’s judgment after firsthand observation)
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (factors guiding physical-care determination)
In re Marriage of Daniels, 568 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (not all custody factors carry equal weight)
In re Marriage of McKee, 785 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (ultimate objective is child’s long-range best interests)
In re Marriage of Kunkel, 555 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (children’s best interests control custody decisions)