In re the Marriage of Stephens, 810 N.W.2d 523

Craig Stephens and Leslie Stephens dissolved their marriage in 2006; Craig had primary physical custody with joint legal custody.
July 3, 2007 modification allowed Craig to act without Leslie's consultation and required notification to Leslie of major child-related events; other restrictions on Leslie were imposed.
October 13, 2009 the district court approved a consent modification granting Leslie limited, capped visitation with potential increases under therapist Gauger's discretion.
November 20, 2009 Gauger recommended increasing visitation (including every other weekend) but noted scheduling chaos and advised not to compel extra time; Gauger recommended against forcing the younger child to attend.
Leslie filed a rule to show cause in June 2010 seeking contempt against Craig for not following Gauger's recommendations, medical and schooling notifications, and alleged alienation.
The district court found Craig in contempt on December 1, 2010, based on the belief he failed to follow Gauger's recommended visitation increases and the October 2009 modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the October 13, 2009 modification improperly delegate judicial power?	Stephens argues the modification delegated court authority to Gauger.	Gauger's letter was a therapist's recommendation, not a court order; the court could adopt recommendations only as guidance.	Yes; delegation to Gauger was improper and invalid.
Can Craig be held in contempt for not following Gauger’s recommendations?	Leslie contends Craig ignored the increased visitation authorized by Gauger's letter.	The more frequent visitation was not an order of the court, only a therapist's recommendation.	No; Craig cannot be held in contempt for noncompliance with a non-judicial recommendation.
Was there substantial evidence supporting contempt under the October 13, 2009 order as modified by Gauger?	Contempt was warranted for disobeying the modified visitation schedule.	Evidence showed the court authorized visitation as originally ordered; Gauger’s increases were not judicially approved.	No; the evidence did not establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was the contempt finding within the trial court’s jurisdiction and authority?	Contempt was proper under the consent modification.	The court could not delegate modifications to a non-judicial actor.	Yes; the writ is sustained, as the contempt finding was improper and the order should be controlled by the court.

In re Marriage of Brown, 778 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa Ct.App. 2009) (court may not delegate custody/visitation modifications)
Madyun v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 544 N.W.2d 441 (Iowa 1996) (conthipment review limited; substantial evidence standard)
Rater v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 548 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt in contempt)
Walters v. Walters, 673 N.W.2d 585 (Neb. 2004) (judicial power to determine custody/visitation cannot be delegated)
In re Paternity of A.R.R., 634 N.E.2d 786 (Ind. Ct.App. 1994) (court cannot delegate visitation decisions to others)