In re the Marriage of Black, 21-0801

Parties married; two children (born 2010 and 2012). Relationship included long‑standing conflict and prior domestic‑violence incidents.
In 2013 both parents were arrested for domestic assault; children were removed for ~6 months.
By 2018 David assumed more day‑to‑day parenting; in March 2019 Alanna assaulted the older child, threatened David, and was arrested.
A final protective order in April 2019 found Alanna committed domestic abuse, required her to move out, and gave David temporary physical care; children have lived with David since.
Alanna has a history of alcohol use and mental‑health concerns; DHS recommended services which she declined. David works full time and retained stable care; Alanna works and lives in a two‑bedroom apartment.
District court awarded David physical care and set a visitation schedule (more liberal in summer); Alanna appealed. Appellate review is de novo with weight given to trial credibility findings; children’s best interests govern custody.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Alanna)	Defendant's Argument (David)	Held
Should Alanna be awarded primary physical care?	Alanna was primary caregiver during marriage and can best serve the children’s interests.	Children have been thriving in David’s care since 2018–2019; Alanna’s alcohol/mental‑health problems and domestic‑abuse history make her unsuitable.	Affirmed award to David: continuity, stability, and history of domestic abuse favor David.
Should the court award joint physical care?	Alanna preferred joint care (or would accept it) based on past caregiving role.	Joint care is impracticable given parties’ inability to communicate and high conflict.	Denied joint care: approximation, communication, and conflict factors weigh against joint arrangement.
Should Alanna’s visitation be expanded (school‑year overnights)?	Requests additional weekday overnights to match temporary order.	Current schedule protects children’s homework/activities; summer time already expanded.	Visitation schedule affirmed: limited weekday time justified by concerns about homework/extracurriculars; summer alternating weeks adopted.

In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (objective of physical‑care determination is child’s physical, mental, and social health)
In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (factors to evaluate joint physical care)
In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (appellate deference to trial court fact findings)
In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1983) (best interests of the child are controlling)
In re Marriage of Courtade, 560 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (custody factors from Iowa Code §598.41 applicable to physical‑care analysis)
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (choose least‑detrimental custodial alternative for child’s long‑range interests)
In re Marriage of Ruden, 509 N.W.2d 494 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (liberal visitation is benchmark in children’s best interests)
In re Marriage of Brainard, 523 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (visitation rights governed by children’s best interests)
In re Marriage of Bolin, 336 N.W.2d 441 (Iowa 1983) (geographic proximity factor discussed in custody/joint‑care context)