In Re the Marriage of Brandon Kleve and Daphnie Kleve Upon the Petition of Brandon Kleve, and Concerning Daphnie Kleve, 16-0607

Daphnie and Brandon Kleve married in 2013; son born in 2014 in Iowa; daughter born in April 2015 (paternity by DNA 99.999999%).
Parties separated Oct 2014; Daphnie moved the son to Utah without notifying Brandon; Brandon obtained a temporary injunction Nov 2014 and the son has lived with Brandon in Iowa since.
The daughter remained with Daphnie in Utah after separation; trial followed and the district court awarded Brandon physical care of both children.
The district court found Daphnie less credible than Brandon, noting inconsistencies between her testimony and medical records and lack of corroboration for abuse allegations.
The court declined to order split physical care, citing the presumption against splitting siblings and the importance of fostering a sibling bond.
On de novo review, the appellate court affirmed, finding Brandon better able to minister to the children’s long-term needs due to family proximity, more stable housing, and concerns about Daphnie’s judgment and mental-health insight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court misstate undisputed facts so the decree fails?	Daphnie: court misstated facts, undermining decree.	Brandon: appellate review de novo; district court findings given weight, particularly credibility.	Court rejected claim; de novo review applied and credited district court credibility findings.
Should custody be split between parents?	Daphnie: split care is justified because children lacked a bond at dissolution.	Brandon: presumption against splitting siblings; siblings benefit from being placed together.	Court held presumption against split custody applies; no compelling reason to split.
Which parent should have physical care of both children (best interests)?	Daphnie: sought physical care of both children (or at least the daughter).	Brandon: argued he better meets long-range best interests (stability, family support, housing).	Court held Brandon better able to minister to children’s long-term needs; affirmed physical care to Brandon.
Were credibility and mental-health concerns relevant to custody decision?	Daphnie: disputed credibility findings and challenged interpretations of medical evidence.	Brandon: district court’s credibility findings supported by record inconsistencies; Daphnie showed lack of insight into need for treatment.	Court deferred to district court credibility assessments and considered mental-health concerns in awarding custody to Brandon.

In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2005) (de novo appellate review of custody with deference to credibility findings)
In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 1999) (appellate deference to district court credibility determinations)
In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (presumption against split physical custody of siblings)
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (placing children with parent who best ministers to long-range best interests)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (use of statutory and Winter factors in custody determinations)