Sao Mansaray v. Angeline Nayou, 16-1997

Parents Sao Mansaray (father) and Angeline Nayou (mother) have three minor children; after an August 2016 trial the district court placed the children in Angeline’s physical care.
The parties had a pretrial stipulation providing for joint physical care during the children’s summer break; the district court rejected that portion of the stipulation.
The court adopted a more limited visitation schedule it found would provide stability while allowing significant contact with both parents.
The district court found Sao less credible, noted a 2008 criminal domestic-violence incident and a more recent alleged incident, and found Sao provided minimal assistance with the children and that communication between parents was strained.
Sao appealed, arguing the court should have followed the parties’ agreed summer schedule and should not have reduced his visitation; he contended the 2008 incident should not be dispositive.
The appellate court reviewed visitation de novo but gave considerable weight to the district court’s factual findings and affirmed the visitation order; appellate attorney fees of $900 were awarded to Angeline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in refusing the parties’ pretrial summer-visitation stipulation	Mansaray: Court should enforce the parties’ agreed joint summer physical care	Nayou: The court should craft a schedule in children’s best interests given history and communication problems	Court: Did not err; rejected stipulation because children’s best interests required limited schedule due to credibility, DV, poor communication
Whether visitation reduction was improper	Mansaray: Visitation was reduced unfairly; he has previously participated in joint care	Mansaray implied prior joint care supports more liberal access	Court: Reduction warranted—limited visitation is minimum; parties may agree to more if appropriate
Whether a 2008 domestic-violence incident should control best-interest analysis	Mansaray: Old incident should not be determinative given other factors	Nayou: Domestic violence (including a more recent alleged incident) is relevant to safety and stability	Court: Domestic violence and recent allegations are relevant; they supported limited visitation
Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded	Mansaray: (opposed implicitly)	Nayou: Requested fees based on needs/ability and defense of trial decision	Court (appellate panel): Awarded Nayou $900 in appellate fees

Callender v. Skiles, 623 N.W.2d 852 (Iowa 2001) (standard of appellate review for custody/visitation and emphasis on best interests)
McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses warrants deference to factual findings)
Yarolem v. Ledford, 529 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (children’s best interests are the primary custody consideration)
In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (general principle favoring liberal visitation)
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (nonexclusive factors to consider in custody/visitation determinations)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (applying Winter factors and statutory analysis)
In re Marriage of Toedter, 473 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (parties may agree to expanded visitation beyond court-ordered minimum)
Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13 (Iowa 2005) (factors governing award of appellate attorney fees)