IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1639 Filed August 17, 2022
ELIJAH BLUE HOYT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
AUGUST MARIE SEGOVIA, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Elisabeth
Reynoldson, Judge.
A father challenges a decree awarding the mother physical care of their five-
year-old son. AFFIRMED.
Colton P. Schnepf and Gary Hill of Family Law Solutions of Iowa, LLC, Des
Moines, for appellant.
August M. Segovia, Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Justin D. Walker, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State of Iowa Child Support Recovery.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ. 2
TABOR, Judge.
Elijah Hoyt appeals the decree awarding August Segovia physical care of
their child, C.B.H. Elijah contends he is better able to serve the child’s long-term
interests. After considering C.B.H.’s continuity of care and educational needs, we
affirm the district court.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Elijah and August began dating in high school. When August became
pregnant with C.B.H., she moved in with Elijah’s family in Creston. C.B.H. was
born in 2016 and the family of three relocated to an apartment in Orient. But that
situation did not last. August moved with C.B.H. to her aunt’s house after Elijah
broke a window in a burst of anger. After five months, the parents reconciled, and
Elijah joined them at the aunt’s house. A few months later, the family again moved
to their own apartment.
Their housing flux did not stop the parents from completing their high school
educations and finding jobs to support their child. Elijah has a longer work history,
though he has weathered periods of unemployment tied to layoffs or medical
concerns. August has maintained steady employment—most recently as an in-
home care provider. Both parents have relied on their families for financial support
and help with childcare.
Still unmarried, the parents’ relationship grew contentious in 2020. August
made plans to move with C.B.H. to Texas where her father lived. She secured
housing and applied for jobs there. After August told Elijah about her impending
move, he took C.B.H. to his father’s house in Shannon City. In reaction, August
showed up with several family members to retrieve the boy. An altercation ensued 3
between the families, prompting a call to police. The police told August they could
not remove the child from his father. Afterward, August obtained a protective order
against Elijah, and C.B.H. was returned to her care. Elijah then called the
Department of Human Services (DHS) to report August for child abuse.1 The next
day, August moved to Texas with C.B.H.
August and C.B.H. lived together in Texas for about nine weeks.2 While
they were gone, Elijah petitioned to establish custody, visitation, and child support.
The court entered an order on temporary matters based on the parties’ stipulated
agreement. Elijah and August agreed to joint legal custody and a mutual protective
order. And they agreed that C.B.H. would stay with Elijah in Creston during the
summer of 2020 to balance the time that August had sole care in Texas.
In August 2020, the district court entered a second order on temporary
matters. The court granted Elijah temporary physical care and ordered August to
pay child support. The parties entered a stipulated agreement modifying that
arrangement in late October 2020 after August relocated to Des Moines.
The court held a final hearing on Elijah’s petition in September 2021. After
hearing evidence from both sides, the court found August was better able to
provide for C.B.H.’s long-term success and awarded her physical care. On appeal,
Elijah requests physical care.3
1 The DHS investigated and found the allegation was not confirmed. 2 In June 2020, August returned C.B.H. to Creston. She would move back to Iowa herself in October. 3 Elijah’s initial petition requested shared care. At trial, he requested primary
physical care. The district court noted that even if he had not changed his request, the distance between Creston and Des Moines made shared care unfeasible. 4
II. Scope and Standard of Review
The district court tries custody matters in equity, and we review equitable
proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We review the entire record with
fresh eyes and make our own ruling on the legal and factual issues presented by
the parties.4 See In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759, 761 (Iowa Ct. App.
1998). We give weight to the findings of the district court but are not bound by
them. In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). Key to our
decision here, we recognize that the district court had the best opportunity to see
the parties and make credibility determinations. See In re Marriage of Vrban, 359
N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984).
III. Analysis
In determining physical care, we place the child’s best interests above all
other considerations. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o). We apply the same
principles to custody decisions for married and unmarried parents. See Iowa Code
§ 600B.40(2) (2021) (cross-referencing Iowa Code section 598.41). And we are
guided by the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those enumerated
in our case law. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67
(Iowa 1974); see also In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696ꟷ97 (Iowa
2007). Not all factors deserve equal attention. In re Marriage of Daniels, 568
N.W.2d 51, 54 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The weight we assign to each factor depends
on the particular facts of each case. Id.
4 Only Elijah was represented by counsel at the trial and on appeal. August represented herself at trial and waived her chance to file a brief on appeal. 5
On appeal, Elijah contends the district court awarded physical care to
August “without a thorough analysis” of the relevant factors. In particular, he
complains that the court did not give enough weight to “stability and continuity of
caregiving” in a child’s life. Drilling down, Elijah argues that C.B.H.’s ties to Creston
should play a larger role in our analysis.
We are not persuaded. Granted, C.B.H. has spent most of his life in Creston
and attended two years of preschool there. And true, he has family and friends in
Creston who have supported him in his early years. But on the other side of the
coin, August has family in Des Moines with whom C.B.H. also has a strong
connection. When the decree issued, C.B.H. was just starting kindergarten. As
the district court recognized, all kindergartners are “navigating changes as they
begin a new phase of life.” Moving C.B.H. to Des Moines did not seriously disrupt
his stability at home or at school. The record shows that C.B.H. will be able to
maintain meaningful connections in both Creston and Des Moines.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1639 Filed August 17, 2022
ELIJAH BLUE HOYT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
AUGUST MARIE SEGOVIA, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Elisabeth
Reynoldson, Judge.
A father challenges a decree awarding the mother physical care of their five-
year-old son. AFFIRMED.
Colton P. Schnepf and Gary Hill of Family Law Solutions of Iowa, LLC, Des
Moines, for appellant.
August M. Segovia, Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Justin D. Walker, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State of Iowa Child Support Recovery.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ. 2
TABOR, Judge.
Elijah Hoyt appeals the decree awarding August Segovia physical care of
their child, C.B.H. Elijah contends he is better able to serve the child’s long-term
interests. After considering C.B.H.’s continuity of care and educational needs, we
affirm the district court.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Elijah and August began dating in high school. When August became
pregnant with C.B.H., she moved in with Elijah’s family in Creston. C.B.H. was
born in 2016 and the family of three relocated to an apartment in Orient. But that
situation did not last. August moved with C.B.H. to her aunt’s house after Elijah
broke a window in a burst of anger. After five months, the parents reconciled, and
Elijah joined them at the aunt’s house. A few months later, the family again moved
to their own apartment.
Their housing flux did not stop the parents from completing their high school
educations and finding jobs to support their child. Elijah has a longer work history,
though he has weathered periods of unemployment tied to layoffs or medical
concerns. August has maintained steady employment—most recently as an in-
home care provider. Both parents have relied on their families for financial support
and help with childcare.
Still unmarried, the parents’ relationship grew contentious in 2020. August
made plans to move with C.B.H. to Texas where her father lived. She secured
housing and applied for jobs there. After August told Elijah about her impending
move, he took C.B.H. to his father’s house in Shannon City. In reaction, August
showed up with several family members to retrieve the boy. An altercation ensued 3
between the families, prompting a call to police. The police told August they could
not remove the child from his father. Afterward, August obtained a protective order
against Elijah, and C.B.H. was returned to her care. Elijah then called the
Department of Human Services (DHS) to report August for child abuse.1 The next
day, August moved to Texas with C.B.H.
August and C.B.H. lived together in Texas for about nine weeks.2 While
they were gone, Elijah petitioned to establish custody, visitation, and child support.
The court entered an order on temporary matters based on the parties’ stipulated
agreement. Elijah and August agreed to joint legal custody and a mutual protective
order. And they agreed that C.B.H. would stay with Elijah in Creston during the
summer of 2020 to balance the time that August had sole care in Texas.
In August 2020, the district court entered a second order on temporary
matters. The court granted Elijah temporary physical care and ordered August to
pay child support. The parties entered a stipulated agreement modifying that
arrangement in late October 2020 after August relocated to Des Moines.
The court held a final hearing on Elijah’s petition in September 2021. After
hearing evidence from both sides, the court found August was better able to
provide for C.B.H.’s long-term success and awarded her physical care. On appeal,
Elijah requests physical care.3
1 The DHS investigated and found the allegation was not confirmed. 2 In June 2020, August returned C.B.H. to Creston. She would move back to Iowa herself in October. 3 Elijah’s initial petition requested shared care. At trial, he requested primary
physical care. The district court noted that even if he had not changed his request, the distance between Creston and Des Moines made shared care unfeasible. 4
II. Scope and Standard of Review
The district court tries custody matters in equity, and we review equitable
proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We review the entire record with
fresh eyes and make our own ruling on the legal and factual issues presented by
the parties.4 See In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759, 761 (Iowa Ct. App.
1998). We give weight to the findings of the district court but are not bound by
them. In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). Key to our
decision here, we recognize that the district court had the best opportunity to see
the parties and make credibility determinations. See In re Marriage of Vrban, 359
N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984).
III. Analysis
In determining physical care, we place the child’s best interests above all
other considerations. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o). We apply the same
principles to custody decisions for married and unmarried parents. See Iowa Code
§ 600B.40(2) (2021) (cross-referencing Iowa Code section 598.41). And we are
guided by the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those enumerated
in our case law. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67
(Iowa 1974); see also In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696ꟷ97 (Iowa
2007). Not all factors deserve equal attention. In re Marriage of Daniels, 568
N.W.2d 51, 54 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The weight we assign to each factor depends
on the particular facts of each case. Id.
4 Only Elijah was represented by counsel at the trial and on appeal. August represented herself at trial and waived her chance to file a brief on appeal. 5
On appeal, Elijah contends the district court awarded physical care to
August “without a thorough analysis” of the relevant factors. In particular, he
complains that the court did not give enough weight to “stability and continuity of
caregiving” in a child’s life. Drilling down, Elijah argues that C.B.H.’s ties to Creston
should play a larger role in our analysis.
We are not persuaded. Granted, C.B.H. has spent most of his life in Creston
and attended two years of preschool there. And true, he has family and friends in
Creston who have supported him in his early years. But on the other side of the
coin, August has family in Des Moines with whom C.B.H. also has a strong
connection. When the decree issued, C.B.H. was just starting kindergarten. As
the district court recognized, all kindergartners are “navigating changes as they
begin a new phase of life.” Moving C.B.H. to Des Moines did not seriously disrupt
his stability at home or at school. The record shows that C.B.H. will be able to
maintain meaningful connections in both Creston and Des Moines.
We also give weight to the division of parenting duties before the parties’
separation. See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 698. Even before moving to Texas,
August was C.B.H.’s primary caregiver. Although Elijah’s parenting role increased
after the court awarded him temporary physical care, the final decision to award
physical care to August replicates how C.B.H. spent most of his early years. Elijah
argues that continuity of care weighs in his favor because of the interim period.
But his argument discounts the history.
In another critique of the decree, Elijah insists the district court
overemphasized concerns about C.B.H.’s spotty preschool attendance and
personal hygiene when in his care. But like the district court, we see these matters 6
as indicators of stability. See Winter, 223 N.W.2d at 166 (considering capacity of
each parent to provide for child’s social, material, and educational needs). While
in Elijah’s care, C.B.H. was often absent from preschool. His teachers noticed
delays in his learning benchmarks and recommended repeating the year so he
could catch up with his peers. The school also noted occasional lapses in C.B.H.’s
cleanliness. No doubt, Elijah is interested in promoting C.B.H.’s happiness and
sense of adventure. But August has shown that she will place a higher priority on
C.B.H.’s school attendance and personal hygiene, which are important to his
growth and development.
As Elijah acknowledges, both he and August are suitable custodians. In a
close case like this, we rely even more heavily on the district court’s opportunity to
view the parties in person. We defer to its observations that the parties
communicate well and will each foster C.B.H.’s relationship with the other parent.
C.B.H. loves spending time with each parent, and each parent has curated a home
environment with his safety and happiness in mind. But the record shows us that
August has paid closer attention to C.B.H.’s prospects for future educational
success. With C.B.H.’s best interests in mind, we find that August should have
physical care. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.