In re the Marriage of Diercks
21-0869
Iowa Ct. App.Mar 30, 2022Background
- Parties divorced in 2011; decree awarded joint legal custody and joint physical care of two sons (2007, 2008 births). Father (Diercks) lives in Bettendorf, children reside primarily with him. Mother (Rachel Ullrich) moved from Iowa to Illinois and later to Florida (2019); maintains a summer home in northern Wisconsin.
- A 2015 stipulated modification limited mother’s parenting time to every-other-weekend, a holiday/break schedule, and two three-week summer periods.
- Mother filed in 2020 seeking modification of her parenting schedule.
- The district court (after trial) reduced mother’s school-year weekend time to one weekend per month, expanded summer parenting to a continuous block from one week after school ends to two weeks before it resumes, and ordered use of a shared Google calendar for children’s events.
- Father appealed, raising four issues: (1) increase in mother’s summer time; (2) court’s refusal to require mother to transport children to activities; (3) scope/clarity of the Google calendar requirement; and (4) exclusion of multiple witnesses. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diercks) | Defendant's Argument (Ullrich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by increasing mother’s summer parenting time | Summer increase is improper and disrupts children’s extracurricular schedules | Mother’s Florida move is a material change; modest summer increase compensates for reduced school-year time and balances travel burdens | Affirmed: summer change is not significant and is in children’s best interests given distance and activities |
| Whether court should require mother to take children to activities during her time | Mother should be required to transport children to scheduled activities to avoid disruption | Requiring transport gives father control over mother’s time and is undue; mother should be trusted to make children available for important events | Affirmed: court properly refused mandatory transport requirement; can be revisited if mother unreasonably neglects activities |
| Whether Google calendar order was vague or overbroad | Calendar requirement lacks sufficient guidance and could be used to control parenting time | Calendar is a communication tool to post children’s events; not intended to control parenting time | Affirmed: calendar requirement stands as ordered to facilitate information exchange; no expansion warranted |
| Whether exclusion of seven witnesses was an abuse of discretion | Excluding witnesses prevented testimony on importance of activities and other topics | Testimony would have been cumulative; the court limited topics and father’s offer of proof expanded scope only after the ruling | Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; appellate review limited to topics preserved at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sisson, 843 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review applies to modification of custody/parenting schedules)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 778 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (modification requires material change and best interests; visitation standard applies where appropriate)
- In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1983) (custody decisions are fact-intensive; prior cases have limited precedential value)
- In re Marriage of Hunt, 476 N.W.2d 99 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (recognizing increased extracurricular involvement as children age)
- Eisenhauer ex rel. T.D. v. Henry Cnty. Health Ctr., 935 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2019) (offer of proof purpose: create adequate record for trial court rulings and appellate review)
- Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, 608 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2000) (appellate courts may raise and decide error-preservation issues)