In Re the Marriage of Kyle D. Morrison and Cassie K. Morrison Upon the Petition of Kyle D. Morrison, and Concerning Cassie K. Morrison, 16-0886

Background

Kyle and Cassie Morrison divorced by stipulated decree (Jan 2014): joint legal custody, Cassie awarded physical care, Kyle liberal visitation; two children (born 2011, 2012).
Cassie filed to clarify legal custody, modify visitation, and modify child support (Dec 2014); Kyle counterclaimed seeking physical care.
Parents have a highly contentious relationship with multiple incidents of conflict; one incident shortly before filing involved alleged physical contact and inconsistent statements to a deputy.
Cassie arranged counseling for one child without timely informing Kyle; Kyle learned of it via discovery and argued this violated his joint-legal-custody rights.
The district court denied all requested relief; on appeal the Iowa Court of Appeals reviews de novo but gives some deference to trial court credibility assessments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kyle proved a material, permanent change warranting transfer of physical care to him	Kyle: Cassie’s secret counseling and interference with his legal-custody rights show changed circumstances and unfitness	Cassie: Conduct was limited, motivated by child’s needs, and not a basis to change custody	Denied — Kyle did not meet heavy burden; stability favored keeping Cassie as physical custodian
Whether joint physical care should be awarded to Kyle	Kyle: If not sole physical care, at least joint physical care	Cassie: High conflict and poor communication make joint physical care impracticable	Denied — ongoing hostility, poor communication, and risk to children make joint physical care unsuitable
Whether Cassie could get a judicial clarification making routine decision-making effectively hers (de facto sole legal custody)	Cassie: She needs defined sole routine-decision authority (healthcare, school, daycare, providers) to avoid interference	Kyle: Joint legal custody entitles both parents to participate; requests seek de facto sole custody without proof of changed circumstances	Denied — request would modify joint legal custody; Cassie did not prove required material change for sole custody
Whether visitation schedule should be modified to reduce conflicts (Cassie)	Cassie: Limit midweek visits and adjust exchanges to reduce friction	Kyle: Proposed changes reduce his time with children and are not needed for best interests	Denied — proposed changes reduce father’s contact and exchanges wouldn’t meaningfully reduce conflict; stability preserved
Whether child support should be recalculated and cash medical support ordered	Cassie: Kyle’s 2015 gross income (1099s) yields higher support and she seeks cash medical support	Kyle: Net income is lower after allowable expenses; 2014 tax returns support ~$30,000 net income	Denied (support recalculation): Trial court credited Kyle’s net-income testimony; child support not changed (less than 10%); Remanded to determine cash medical support

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (standards for custody modifications; child’s best interests govern)
In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (party seeking custody change must show material, permanent change and ability to minister more effectively)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for awarding joint physical care: historical caregiving, communication, conflict, routine agreement)
In re Marriage of Leyda, 355 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 1984) (requirements to modify joint legal custody to sole custody)
In re Marriage of Vetternack, 334 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1983) (standards for modifying child support and court discretion)