In Re the Marriage of Dean Alan Ritchison and Wendy Jo Ritchison Upon the Petition of Dean Alan Ritchison, and Concerning Wendy Jo Ritchison, N/K/A Wendy Jo Jensen, 16-0942

Dean and Wendy Ritchison divorced in 2007; they shared joint legal custody and joint physical care of two minor daughters (born 1999 and 2001).
For several years the parties informally shifted a weekday/weekend schedule: by practice the girls lived with Dean during the week and with Wendy on weekends during the school year.
Wendy filed an application for contempt in November 2015, alleging Dean refused to return the children; Dean responded with a petition to modify physical care, seeking primary physical care.
At the May 2016 hearing the court interviewed the daughters in chambers: both (ages 17 and 14) expressed a preference to live with Dean during the week and Wendy on weekends, and both described relationship and conflict issues with Wendy.
A therapist who saw the children and mother reported mood and relationship problems between the daughters and Wendy but no conflict between the daughters and Dean.
The district court dismissed the contempt claim and found a material change in circumstances, concluding Dean was in the superior position to be the primary physical caretaker; Wendy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wendy)	Defendant's Argument (Dean)	Held
Whether physical-care award should be modified to place children with Wendy	Wendy agreed change occurred but argued she was better able to minister to the children and should receive primary physical care	Dean argued there was a material change and he was in a superior position to be primary physical caretaker; children preferred living with him during the week	Court affirmed modification placing the daughters in Dean's physical care (de novo review)
Weight to give children's custodial preference	Wendy argued preferences were driven by desire for more freedom/activities and should not control	Dean relied on the children’s candid statements about problems with Wendy and their clear, consistent preference	Court considered statutory factors (age, strength, reasons, relationships) and found children’s statements credible and persuasive though not controlling
Whether mother's failure to engage in therapy affected custody	Wendy contended limited therapy did not justify removing primary care	Dean pointed to Wendy’s delayed and minimal participation in therapy and ongoing conflict as significant to children’s welfare	Court found mother’s limited therapy and ongoing relational conflicts supported placing children with Dean
Appellate attorney fees request by Wendy	Wendy requested fees	Dean opposed	Court declined to award appellate fees; each party to bear own costs

In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (standard of review for modification of physical-care provisions)
In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (party seeking custody modification must prove superior ability to minister to children’s well‑being)
McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (children’s preferences are a factor but not controlling in custody determinations)
In re Marriage of Behm, 416 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (child’s preference entitled to less weight in modification than in initial custody determination)
In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees in family-law appeals)
State v. Mann, 602 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 1999) (issues mentioned without developed argument may be deemed waived)