Mandy Kay Hensch v. Nicholas Allen Mysak, 902 N.W.2d 822

Child H.M. born August 2014 to Mandy Hensch and Nicholas Mysak; parents separated romantically soon after but cohabited until November 2015.
Mysak moved out in November 2015; Hensch filed to establish paternity, custody, visitation, and support in February 2016.
Parties agreed to temporary joint legal custody and shared physical care and maintained that arrangement through trial.
District court made the temporary joint legal custody and shared physical care permanent and ordered Mysak to pay child support.
Hensch appealed seeking sole physical care; appeal concerns whether shared physical care serves the child’s best interests given parental communication/conflict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joint/shared physical care is in child’s best interest	Hensch argued arrangement was not of sufficient duration or stability and sought primary physical care	Mysak argued shared care matched historical arrangement and worked well for the child	Court affirmed joint/shared physical care as in child’s best interest
Weight of approximation (historical caregiving)	Hensch downplayed approximation due to perceived short duration	Mysak pointed to shared care since birth and functioning arrangement	Court found approximation strongly supported shared care
Effect of parental communication/conflict on shared care	Hensch argued strained communication made shared care unworkable	Mysak acknowledged messaging but argued conflicts did not prevent parenting cooperation	Court found communication problems existed but did not rise to level precluding shared care; district court’s remedies were appropriate
Need for specific findings if denying joint care	N/A (Hensch sought sole care; district court awarded joint care)	N/A	Court observed statute requires specific findings only when denying joint care; here joint care was awarded so requirement not triggered

Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2001) (standard for de novo review in equitable family-law proceedings)
In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (scope of de novo review of record)
In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (deference/weight to district court findings in equitable review)
In re Marriage of Mauer, 874 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 2016) (substantial equity standard for affirming district court)
In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1995) (need to tailor custody decisions to facts despite precedent)
In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (framework for custody determinations)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (best-interests factors and importance of past caretaking patterns)
In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (nonexclusive list of factors for joint physical care)
Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa 1987) (same custody analysis applies to children born out of wedlock)
In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (statutory provision requiring findings when denying joint physical care)
In re Marriage of Stafford, 386 N.W.2d 118 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) (conflict alone does not preclude shared care)
In re Marriage of Ertmann, 376 N.W.2d 918 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985) (litigation acrimony must exceed typical levels to bar shared care)