IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0868 Filed March 19, 2025
BRADLEY RAY PIEPER, Petitioner-Appellee,
vs.
AMANDA MARIE GABEL, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Alan Heavens,
Judge.
A mother appeals the child-custody determination placing the parties’ minor
child in the father’s physical care. AFFIRMED.
Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West
Des Moines, for appellant.
John J. Wood of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, P.C.,
Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Amanda Gabel appeals the district court’s child-custody determination,
which placed the parties’ child in Brad Pieper’s physical care. Upon our de novo
review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Gabel and Pieper never married but were together for approximately eight
years. They share one child, D.R.P., born in 2019. During their relationship, Gabel
was a stay-at-home parent and Pieper worked. But when D.R.P. was one year
old, Gabel suffered from a stroke, which seriously impaired her functioning and
abilities. During this time, Pieper served as both the primary breadwinner and
primary caregiver until Gabel recovered. Since then, Gabel has made substantial
improvements in her health, especially in her speech and mobility. Although she
does not currently work, Gabel receives disability income and expects this to
continue.
In June 2022, Gabel traveled to Michigan with D.R.P. under the pretext of
visiting family. But two weeks after arriving in Michigan, Gabel ended her
relationship with Pieper and refused to return the child to Iowa despite Pieper’s
protests. Pieper petitioned the district court for joint legal custody and physical
care. In response, Gabel agreed to joint legal custody but requested the child be
placed in her physical care. Both parties also filed competing motions for
temporary matters. In hers, Gabel alleged that Pieper was “emotionally and
verbally abusive.” Following a hearing on the motions, the court found that
temporary shared physical care was in D.R.P.’s best interests, but because of the
geographic distance between the parties, it ordered an alternating schedule in 3
which each parent had two consecutive weeks with the child. The district court did
not find Gabel’s allegations against Pieper to be wholly credible but nonetheless
ordered him to complete an anger management course. Over the next year and a
half until trial, the parties generally followed this schedule as ordered, and Pieper
completed anger management programming.
While the dispute was pending in district court, Gabel suffered from a
seizure while driving and lost consciousness on the side of the road. At trial, she
testified that since this incident, she was prescribed a new medication to prevent
further seizures. But Pieper still expressed concerns about Gabel’s health based
on her previous stroke and insulin-dependent diabetes, which had resulted in
multiple episodes throughout their relationship.
Trial occurred in May 2024. Both parties requested physical care, and their
testimonies were in direct conflict. Gabel testified that Pieper was an abusive
partner and uninvolved parent. But Pieper and other witnesses painted him as a
loving, attentive father. The district court ultimately granted Pieper’s request for
joint legal custody and physical care. Gabel appeals.
II. Physical Care Determination.
Gabel only challenges the court’s physical-care determination. We review
physical-care determinations de novo. See Hensch v. Mysak,
902 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). While not binding on us, we do give
weight to the court’s fact findings, especially those considering the credibility of
witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). “The objective of a physical care
determination is to place the child[ ] in the environment most likely to bring them to
health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of 4
Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). To determine the best interests of
D.R.P., we consider the factors from In re Marriage of Winter. 223 N.W.2d 165,
166–67 (Iowa 1974); see also Iowa Code §§ 598.41(3) (setting out the applicable
factors in custody determinations), 600B.40(2) (directing the court to apply
section 598.41(3) in non-dissolution custody cases). Gabel specifically challenges
the court’s consideration of her historical role as the primary caregiver and its
finding that she was unable to support Pieper’s relationship with D.R.P.
Gabel contends that the district court should have given her caregiving role
more weight. But while we consider Gabel’s role as the primary caregiver a
significant factor, “it is not an overwhelming factor mandating that she be awarded
physical care.” In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
Instead, we consider whether the party requesting physical care has been an
“active and interested parent since [the child’s] birth.” Id. Contrary to Gabel’s
arguments at trial, the court found that Pieper was an engaged parent. This was
corroborated by several witnesses, who described Pieper and D.R.P.’s positive
relationship and their touching reunion at the temporary matters hearing, in which
D.R.P. “jumped in [her father’s] arms and wouldn’t let go.” The court went on to
say that “D.R.P. has a healthy and equal bond with both of her parents” and
expressly found Gabel’s “repeated” arguments that D.R.P. disliked her father were
“not a credible claim.” We find that Pieper has proven himself as a capable
caregiver, both following Gabel’s stroke and since the time of the temporary
matters hearing, after which the court ordered the parties to share equal parenting
time. We therefore do not find this factor to be as dispositive as Gabel contends.
See In re Marriage of Williams, No. 16-1527, 2017 WL 2875392, at *3 (Iowa Ct. 5
App. July 6, 2017) (finding the “approximation principle” can be outweighed by
other factors).
Gabel also challenges the court’s finding that she was unable to support
Pieper’s relationship with D.R.P. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring the
court to consider “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship
with the child” as part of its child-custody determination). But most of her
arguments criticize the court’s fact-findings regarding her credibility, and we give
great deference to such findings. See In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464,
469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (“The trial court has the advantage of listening to and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0868 Filed March 19, 2025
BRADLEY RAY PIEPER, Petitioner-Appellee,
vs.
AMANDA MARIE GABEL, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Alan Heavens,
Judge.
A mother appeals the child-custody determination placing the parties’ minor
child in the father’s physical care. AFFIRMED.
Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West
Des Moines, for appellant.
John J. Wood of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, P.C.,
Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Amanda Gabel appeals the district court’s child-custody determination,
which placed the parties’ child in Brad Pieper’s physical care. Upon our de novo
review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Gabel and Pieper never married but were together for approximately eight
years. They share one child, D.R.P., born in 2019. During their relationship, Gabel
was a stay-at-home parent and Pieper worked. But when D.R.P. was one year
old, Gabel suffered from a stroke, which seriously impaired her functioning and
abilities. During this time, Pieper served as both the primary breadwinner and
primary caregiver until Gabel recovered. Since then, Gabel has made substantial
improvements in her health, especially in her speech and mobility. Although she
does not currently work, Gabel receives disability income and expects this to
continue.
In June 2022, Gabel traveled to Michigan with D.R.P. under the pretext of
visiting family. But two weeks after arriving in Michigan, Gabel ended her
relationship with Pieper and refused to return the child to Iowa despite Pieper’s
protests. Pieper petitioned the district court for joint legal custody and physical
care. In response, Gabel agreed to joint legal custody but requested the child be
placed in her physical care. Both parties also filed competing motions for
temporary matters. In hers, Gabel alleged that Pieper was “emotionally and
verbally abusive.” Following a hearing on the motions, the court found that
temporary shared physical care was in D.R.P.’s best interests, but because of the
geographic distance between the parties, it ordered an alternating schedule in 3
which each parent had two consecutive weeks with the child. The district court did
not find Gabel’s allegations against Pieper to be wholly credible but nonetheless
ordered him to complete an anger management course. Over the next year and a
half until trial, the parties generally followed this schedule as ordered, and Pieper
completed anger management programming.
While the dispute was pending in district court, Gabel suffered from a
seizure while driving and lost consciousness on the side of the road. At trial, she
testified that since this incident, she was prescribed a new medication to prevent
further seizures. But Pieper still expressed concerns about Gabel’s health based
on her previous stroke and insulin-dependent diabetes, which had resulted in
multiple episodes throughout their relationship.
Trial occurred in May 2024. Both parties requested physical care, and their
testimonies were in direct conflict. Gabel testified that Pieper was an abusive
partner and uninvolved parent. But Pieper and other witnesses painted him as a
loving, attentive father. The district court ultimately granted Pieper’s request for
joint legal custody and physical care. Gabel appeals.
II. Physical Care Determination.
Gabel only challenges the court’s physical-care determination. We review
physical-care determinations de novo. See Hensch v. Mysak,
902 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). While not binding on us, we do give
weight to the court’s fact findings, especially those considering the credibility of
witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). “The objective of a physical care
determination is to place the child[ ] in the environment most likely to bring them to
health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of 4
Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). To determine the best interests of
D.R.P., we consider the factors from In re Marriage of Winter. 223 N.W.2d 165,
166–67 (Iowa 1974); see also Iowa Code §§ 598.41(3) (setting out the applicable
factors in custody determinations), 600B.40(2) (directing the court to apply
section 598.41(3) in non-dissolution custody cases). Gabel specifically challenges
the court’s consideration of her historical role as the primary caregiver and its
finding that she was unable to support Pieper’s relationship with D.R.P.
Gabel contends that the district court should have given her caregiving role
more weight. But while we consider Gabel’s role as the primary caregiver a
significant factor, “it is not an overwhelming factor mandating that she be awarded
physical care.” In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
Instead, we consider whether the party requesting physical care has been an
“active and interested parent since [the child’s] birth.” Id. Contrary to Gabel’s
arguments at trial, the court found that Pieper was an engaged parent. This was
corroborated by several witnesses, who described Pieper and D.R.P.’s positive
relationship and their touching reunion at the temporary matters hearing, in which
D.R.P. “jumped in [her father’s] arms and wouldn’t let go.” The court went on to
say that “D.R.P. has a healthy and equal bond with both of her parents” and
expressly found Gabel’s “repeated” arguments that D.R.P. disliked her father were
“not a credible claim.” We find that Pieper has proven himself as a capable
caregiver, both following Gabel’s stroke and since the time of the temporary
matters hearing, after which the court ordered the parties to share equal parenting
time. We therefore do not find this factor to be as dispositive as Gabel contends.
See In re Marriage of Williams, No. 16-1527, 2017 WL 2875392, at *3 (Iowa Ct. 5
App. July 6, 2017) (finding the “approximation principle” can be outweighed by
other factors).
Gabel also challenges the court’s finding that she was unable to support
Pieper’s relationship with D.R.P. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring the
court to consider “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship
with the child” as part of its child-custody determination). But most of her
arguments criticize the court’s fact-findings regarding her credibility, and we give
great deference to such findings. See In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464,
469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (“The trial court has the advantage of listening to and
observing the parties and witnesses and is in a better position to weigh the
credibility of witnesses.”). Contrary to Gabel’s challenges, the district court here
expressly found “Pieper was much more credible” and that Gabel was “openly
hostile towards Pieper.” The court noted that, when asked whether Gabel had
anything good to say about Pieper as a parent, she answered “no.” The court then
described the impact that Gabel’s resentment had on their young child, especially
in contrast with Pieper, who it found “has a more mature and less hostile approach
towards furthering [Gabel’s] relationship with D.R.P.” While Gabel argues that she
made significant efforts to include Pieper in parenting D.R.P., it is clear to us that
the court did not find that argument credible. As an appellate court, while “we
appreciate the interplay that occurs during a trial to cast aspersions on each side,”
“we were not there” at trial. See id. at 471. It is therefore not our role to re-evaluate
the credibility of witnesses and substitute our judgment for that of the district
court’s. See id. As the court pointed out, Gabel removed D.R.P. from her father,
made disparaging comments about Pieper at trial, and acted “bitter and immature,” 6
although Pieper also acted poorly at times. We similarly find that the record
supports the court’s finding that Gabel is unable to support Pieper’s relationship
with their child and will “likely . . . use an award of physical care as a weapon to
undermine her daughter’s relationship with her father.”
Based on these findings, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that
granting Pieper physical care is in D.R.P.’s best interests. Gabel’s historic role as
caregiver does not weigh heavily in her favor when considered against the other
factors. Specifically, we find that her inability to co-parent with Pieper does not
convince us that she can provide “the environment most likely to bring [the child]
to health.” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695; accord In re Marriage of Shada,
No. 23-1912, 2024 WL 4222888, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024) (collecting
cases where the child was placed with the historical non-primary parent due to the
primary parent’s inability to support their relationship). Pieper, in contrast, is able
to provide this environment while also allowing D.R.P. to have a relationship with
both of her parents. Accordingly, we affirm.
III. Appellate Attorney Fees.
Gabel also requests appellate attorney fees. An award of attorney fees is
not a matter of right but is a matter of discretion. See Christy v. Lenz,
878 N.W.2d 461, 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “In determining whether to award
appellate attorney fees, we consider the needs of the party seeking the award, the
ability of the other party to pay, and the relative merits of the appeal.” Id. (citation
omitted). While Pieper has more income than Gabel, he is the prevailing party.
See Iowa Code § 600B.26. We therefore decline to award Gabel appellate
attorney fees. 7
IV. Disposition.
Because Pieper having physical care is in D.R.P.’s best interests, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.