In Re the Marriage of Dean Richard Olson and Tina Marie Olson Upon the Petition of Dean Richard Olson, and Concerning Tina Marie Olson, N/K/A/ Tina Marie Koziol, 16-0177

Dean Olson and Tina (Koziol) divorced in 2014 by stipulation granting joint legal custody; Tina was awarded physical care and Dean set visitation.
The parenting plan required 60 days' notice and a court order before removing the child from the current school district; relocation would require modification if parents disagreed.
In 2015 Tina remarried and planned a permanent move to central Wisconsin (200+ miles away); she notified Dean by letter and said she would be moving and remarrying.
Dean filed to modify physical custody, alleging a substantial change in circumstances and claiming he could better minister to the child’s needs; he alleged Tina had misled him to obtain physical care.
The district court denied modification as premature and found Dean failed to show superior ability to care for the child; it modified visitation to account for the long-distance move but allowed the child to relocate with Tina.
On appeal the court reviewed de novo, gave weight to district-court credibility findings, assumed without deciding the move might be a substantial change, and affirmed denial because Dean did not show superior caregiving or that change would be in the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tina’s remarriage and planned move constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying custody modification	Olson: Remarriage and relocation are substantial, unanticipated changes warranting modification	Koziol: Remarriage alone is not substantial; the court contemplated such possibilities; move does not justify changing custody	Court assumed arguendo the move might be substantial but did not decide; denied modification primarily on other grounds
Whether Dean demonstrated superior ability to minister to the child’s needs	Olson: He is the superior caregiver and continued physical placement with Tina is not in the child’s best interests	Koziol: She has been primary caregiver; both parents are competent; no reason to change custody	Court held Dean failed to show superior ability; Tina remained primary caregiver and custody unchanged
Whether the petition was premature	Olson: Change already occurred; modification appropriate now	Koziol: Remarriage by itself isn’t a substantial, unforeseeable change; petition premature	District court found petition premature; appellate court affirmed denial without relying solely on prematurity
Appropriate remedy given long-distance move	Olson: Modify custody to award him physical care	Koziol: Permit child to move; adjust visitation to long-distance realities	Court allowed child to move with Tina, modified visitation schedule and ordered shared travel costs; denied custody change

In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 2016) (standard for modifying physical care requires substantial change and superior ability to care for child)
In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (appellate review gives weight to district court credibility findings)
In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (best interests of the child is controlling consideration)
Schutjer v. Algona Manor Care Ctr., 780 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2010) (inferential credibility findings can be applied in review)
In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (deference to district court credibility assessments in custody cases)
Vrban v. Local Lodge No. 1423, 359 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1984) (district court’s advantages in observing witnesses support credibility deference)
In re Marriage of Teepe, 271 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1978) (custody is decided by child’s best interests, not to reward or punish parents)
Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002) (primary caregiver typically favored when one parent has been primary)
In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (when parents equally competent, custody should not change)