In re the Marriage of McCusker, 21-1021

Adam and Sara McCusker divorced after both moved away from their former home in Monticello; temporary joint physical care was ordered during proceedings so the children could remain at their Monticello school/daycare.
Sara moved in with her boyfriend (Andy) ~30 minutes from Monticello and worked nearby; Adam moved in with his fiancée (Jenelle) who lives about an hour from Monticello and whose children are close in age to the McCusker children.
Under the temporary arrangement the children would continue attending Monticello school/daycare; while in Sara’s care the daily roundtrip was ~1 hour, and ~2 hours while in Adam’s care.
Both parents were found to be exemplary caregivers who co-parented respectfully; their primary dispute was where the children should attend school after divorce.
District court denied Sara’s request for joint physical care because parental residences were geographically distant and the children’s lengthy commutes would harm their best interests; the court awarded physical care to Adam based largely on the children’s bond with Jenelle’s children and school proximity.
Sara appealed; the appellate court affirmed the denial of joint care and Adam’s physical care award, denied Adam’s request for appellate attorney fees, and taxed costs to Sara.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joint physical care should be ordered	Sara: maintain temporary joint arrangement so children stay at Monticello school/daycare	Adam: joint care unworkable given parents now live far apart and school misalignment	Denied — geographic distance and commuting time made joint care not in children’s best interests
Which parent should receive physical care	Sara: alternatively awarded physical care to her, keeping children at Monticello or moving them to her town	Adam: children should live with him and attend school in his town; better for logistics, emergencies, and social ties	Affirmed — court awarded physical care to Adam based on children’s bond with Jenelle’s children and school proximity
Proper application of custody factors (Hansen factors and statutory list)	Sara: Hansen factors (approximation, communication, low conflict) favor joint care	Adam: statutory factor—geographic proximity—is mandatory and can defeat joint care despite Hansen factors	Court properly weighed Hansen factors but held statutory geographic proximity overrode joint-care feasibility
Award of appellate attorney fees	Adam: sought fees to defend district court’s decision	Sara: lower income and obligations; limited ability to pay	Denied — appellate fees not awarded; costs on appeal taxed to Sara

In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (sets best-interest objective and Hansen factors for joint physical care)
In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (discusses Hansen factors for shared care)
Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (geographic distance can render joint care impractical)
In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (appellate review principles in custody disputes)
In re Marriage of Muell, 408 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (equal physical care can be disruptive and undermine stability)
In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees)
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (additional factors relevant to physical care determinations)