In Re the Marriage of Lisa Appenzeller and Daniel Appenzeller Upon the Petition of Lisa Appenzeller, and Concerning Daniel Appenzeller, 17-0538

Lisa and Daniel Appenzeller divorced after a short marriage; they share twin children born in 2012. Lisa also has an older child (half-sibling to the twins).
The parties originally used a shared-care (2/2/3) temporary schedule after separation; Daniel voluntarily produced substance-abuse treatment records at the temporary hearing.
At trial Lisa sought primary physical care; Daniel sought shared care. Daniel initially denied heroin use but, when confronted with treatment records, admitted heroin use during the marriage and while parenting.
The district court found Lisa was the primary historical caregiver, the shared-care arrangement had harmed the children, and Daniel lacked mutual respect and effective communication with Lisa; it awarded Lisa physical care and liberal visitation to Daniel.
The court set child support based on findings of annual incomes ($34,843 for Lisa; $30,000 for Daniel), valued Daniel’s painting business at $5,000 and the marital home equity at $18,222, awarded the home to Lisa, and declined an equalization payment.
Daniel appealed, arguing (1) the custody award should be shared care, (2) evidentiary errors regarding his treatment records and the children’s therapist testimony, (3) incorrect income and asset valuations, and (4) an inequitable property division.

Issue	Appellee's Argument (Lisa)	Appellant's Argument (Daniel)	Held
Proper physical care arrangement	Lisa should have primary physical care because she was historical primary caregiver and shared care harmed the children	Shared care is appropriate under Berning factors	Affirmed: Lisa awarded physical care; shared care inappropriate (best interests favor Lisa)
Use of Daniel’s substance-abuse treatment records at trial	Records were properly used for impeachment and Daniel waived privilege by producing partial records	Records were privileged physician-patient communications and should be excluded	Affirmed: Daniel impliedly waived privilege by voluntary disclosure; impeachment use permissible
Therapist testimony about children’s statements	Testimony was admissible to show coaching, conflict, and foundation for expert opinion, not for truth of statements	Therapist testimony was hearsay and prejudicial	Affirmed: Statements not offered for truth; court may disregard challenged testimony on de novo review; no prejudice shown
Child support, income, and asset valuations	Court’s income and asset findings are supported by bank records, receipts, and permissible evidence; valuations within evidentiary range	Court erred in finding Daniel’s income $30,000 and in valuing business/home, asking for different division/equalization	Affirmed: Income and valuations fall within permissible evidence; division equitable; no equalization payment warranted

In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (de novo review of dissolution with deference to district court findings)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors and guidance for shared physical-care determinations)
In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (enumerating shared-care factors)
State v. Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa 2005) (physician-patient privilege may be waived by disclosure)
Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 500 (Iowa 1986) (voluntary disclosure of privileged content can constitute waiver)
Ashenfelter v. Mulligan, 792 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 2010) (recognition of privacy in medical/mental-health records)