Tadd Matthew Bergan, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant v. Miranda Hall, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee., 16-1340

Miranda Hall and Tadd Bergan are unmarried parents of minor child M.B., born 2012; they shared alternating weekly custody beginning January 2015.
Hall (younger, lower income) was primary caregiver early on, living in Grinnell while attending college and working part‑time; she later lived with partner William Burnham, who has prior OWI convictions.
Bergan (older, higher income) works for John Deere in Bettendorf, lives with fiancée Megan Zimmer who helps care for M.B., and provides a structured daily routine for the child.
Disputes included communication failures between parents, concerns about Hall’s home lacking interior doors, and questions about Burnham’s suitability to provide extended care.
After a July 2016 bench trial, the district court awarded physical care to Bergan and liberal visitation to Hall (including eight weeks of summer visitation); Hall appealed and Bergan cross‑appealed the summer visitation term.
On appeal the court affirmed placement of physical care with Bergan, reduced Hall’s summer visitation from eight to six weeks, and denied Hall’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Issue	Hall's Argument	Bergan's Argument	Held
Proper physical‑care (custody) placement	Physical care should be placed with Hall (she was primary caregiver early on)	Physical care should remain with Bergan (provides stability, consistency, permanency)	Physical care awarded to Bergan — court finds stability/consistency with Bergan in child’s best interests
Visitation scope (summer vacation)	(Implicit) maintain district court’s liberal schedule (8 weeks) to preserve mother–child bond	Divide summer evenly; reduce uninterrupted time away from father	Modified: summer visitation reduced to six weeks for Hall (other liberal terms preserved)
Parental communication and decision‑making	Hall argued for greater inclusion in decisions and concerns about caregiving by others	Bergan argued structured routine and caregiver (Zimmer) are suitable; some communication lapses acknowledged	Court emphasized need for improved communication; nonetheless found Bergan’s arrangement adequate and ordered him to include Hall in decision‑making going forward
Appellate attorney fees	Hall sought $5,000 in appellate fees	Bergan opposed; partial success on cross‑appeal	Denied — Hall unsuccessful on appeal and cross‑appeal resulted in only partial modification

Phillips v. Davis‑Spurling, 541 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1995) (standard: best interests of the child governs custody)
In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (appellate review gives weight to trial court fact findings, especially credibility)
In re Purscell, 544 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (custody criteria same for unwed parents)
In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (lists nonexclusive custody factors under Iowa law)
In re Marriage of Forbes, 570 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 1997) (trial court better positioned to assess witness demeanor and credibility)
In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1992) (liberal visitation generally in child’s best interest)
In re Marriage of Applegate, 567 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (appellate attorney fees are discretionary)
In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees: needs, ability to pay, relative merits)