In Re the Marriage of Jeremiah Scott and Anna Turner-Scott Upon the Petition of Jeremiah Scott, and Concerning Anna Turner-Scott
15-2228
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Jeremiah and Anna divorced in 2013; decree awarded Jeremiah physical care and Anna extraordinary visitation of their two children.
- Jeremiah moved the children from Iowa to Hilo, Hawaii in August 2015; he conceded the relocation was a substantial, permanent change in circumstances.
- After the move, Anna alleged reduced meaningful contact, difficulty obtaining school/medical information, and instances where Jeremiah denied or impeded visitation; Jeremiah maintained the children were cared for and improving in school.
- District court found Jeremiah acted primarily in his own interest in moving, had a pattern of frustrating mother–child contact, and was not reliably communicating educational/health information; it modified physical care to award custody to Anna and ordered child support and travel provisions for visitation.
- On appeal, the court conducted a de novo review, gave weight to district-court credibility findings, and affirmed the modification; both parties requested appellate fees, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anna) | Defendant's Argument (Jeremiah) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to Hawaii justified modification of physical care | Move detrimentally affected children’s best interests and Anna can provide superior care | Move alone insufficient; Jeremiah remains a good parent and relocation was for valid reasons | Affirmed modification: relocation was a substantial change and district court properly found Anna showed superior ability to minister to children’s needs |
| Whether Jeremiah’s conduct post-move supported transfer of custody | Jeremiah frustrated contact, failed to share education/health info, and didn’t consider children’s emotional needs | Jeremiah provided care, enrolled children in school, and encouraged some contact; communication problems were not intentional | Court credited findings that Jeremiah’s conduct harmed continuing meaningful contact and emotional welfare, supporting custody change |
| Standard and burden for modifying custody after relocation | Anna must show move detrimentally affects children and she has superior parenting ability | Jeremiah argued courts should be reluctant to change custody solely for a parent’s move and that both parents were equally competent | Court applied de novo review, requiring a substantial change plus superior ability; found both prongs met in light of credibility findings |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Both sought fees | Both asked denial or award | Denied fees to both parties after weighing needs, ability to pay, and merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review of modification in equity)
- In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (burden to show substantial change and superior ability for custody modification)
- In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 2016) (requirement to show superior ability to minister to children’s needs)
- In re Marriage of Mayfield, 577 N.W.2d 872 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (reluctance to change custody solely because of parent's move when move is for valid reasons)
- In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (if parents equally competent, custody should not be changed)
- In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (deference to district court credibility findings)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees)