In re the Marriage of Miller, 20-1704

Parties: Danielle Richards (formerly Miller) and Rocky Miller, parents of J.M. (b. 2011); 2015 dissolution awarded joint legal custody and gave Rocky physical care after CINA proceedings; Danielle consented reluctantly.
Original parenting plan: Danielle had three weeknight visits (Mon/Wed/Fri evenings) and alternating weekend overnight parenting time; she was ordered to provide all transport because Rocky lacked a driver’s license.
Post-decree developments: Rocky and J.M. moved roughly an hour away, Rocky has PTSD and admitted methamphetamine relapses, law‑enforcement/firearm incident and multiple home moves occurred; J.M. experienced substantial school tardies/absences while in Rocky’s care.
Danielle’s 2019 petition sought modification of physical care citing distance, Rocky’s mental‑health/substance issues, DHS involvement, and safety concerns; trial was held in 2020.
District court denied transfer of physical care but adjusted visitation and increased Danielle’s support obligation; Danielle appealed.
Court of Appeals reversed as to physical care, awarding Danielle physical care, remanded for recalculation of child support and tax‑exemption allocation, and declined appellate attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether decree should be modified to award physical care to Danielle	Danielle: There has been a substantial, post‑decree change (move, school absences, Rocky’s mental‑health/substance relapses, safety/firearm incident) and she can better meet J.M.’s needs	Rocky: Many issues preexisted the decree; he seeks to remain primary caretaker and has been addressing mental‑health and substance problems	Court: Modification granted—substantial change found (distance, school problems, relapses, safety concerns) and Danielle shown to have superior ability to minister to J.M.’s needs
Whether child support was miscalculated by imputing income to Danielle	Danielle: District court wrongly imputed income; recalculation needed if physical care changes	Rocky: (Responded below by court’s original calculation; on appeal he opposed Danielle’s claims)	Court: Remanded to district court to recalculate child support and determine tax‑exemption allocation based on new physical care and current finances
Whether Danielle should receive appellate attorney fees	Danielle: Requests fees as prevailing party on appeal	Rocky: Opposed; has lower income	Held: Denied—court considered relative incomes and declined to award fees

In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 2016) (modification standard: must show substantial change and superior ability)
In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1983) (changed circumstances must be unforeseen by the original court and more-or-less permanent)
Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (parental move an hour away can constitute a substantial change for custody)
In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2016) (past parental behavior is relevant to predicting future fitness and custody outcomes)