IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1707 Filed January 21, 2021
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JAMIE L. CHRISTENSEN AND MICHAEL D. CHRISTENSEN
Upon the Petition of JAMIE L. CHRISTENSEN, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
And Concerning MICHAEL D. CHRISTENSEN, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Michael D.
Hooper, Judge.
A father and mother both appeal the district court order modifying the
decree dissolving their marriage. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
Theodore R. Wonio of Rasmussen, Nelson & Wonio, P.L.C., Atlantic, for
appellant.
David L. Jungmann of David L. Jungmann, P.C., Greenfield, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021). 2
AHLERS, Judge.
Both parties appeal the district court’s order ruling on the requested
modification of the parties’ dissolution of marriage decree. The father argues the
district court erred by refusing to modify physical care of the couple’s second oldest
child and by granting the mother physical care of their third oldest child. The
mother argues the district court erred by incorrectly calculating the amount of child
support and abused its discretion by failing to require the father to pay her trial
attorney fees. Both parents request appellate attorney fees. We address each of
these issues in turn.
I. Background
The parents divorced in 2010. They had two children together at the time
of their divorce: G.C., their oldest child, and A.C. The dissolution of marriage
decree awarded joint legal custody to both parents and placed physical care of the
children with the mother. The father was granted visitation with the children every
other weekend and for two weeks during the summer. The decree also required
the father to pay child support and provided for division of medical expenses of the
children. In 2011, a consent decree was entered in the dissolution case
establishing the father’s paternity of C.C., the parties’ child born after the original
decree was entered. The consent decree directed the father to pay child support
and provide medical support for all three children.
The father has been employed with the same company for approximately
ten years as a sales representative and consultant. He testified he earned a salary
of $52,000 per year. The mother is a licensed practical nurse and at the time of
trial was employed as a para-instructor earning $11.00 per hour. 3
Following the birth of C.C., the mother began a relationship with another
man, eventually moving in with him in 2014 and marrying in 2019. During this time,
the father and the mother had two more children: J.H, born in 2014, and A.H., born
in 2015. The father testified the mother had the father help her conceive because
the mother’s boyfriend (and later husband) could not have children.
The father filed the current modification proceeding requesting physical
care of G.C. and A.C. He also sought a determination regarding legal custody and
physical care of C.C., a modification to his child support obligation, and to be
allowed to claim the child tax credit and earned income tax credit each year for all
three children. The mother filed a separate action seeking determinations of
paternity, child custody, and support for J.H. and A.H. That action was joined to
the proceedings at issue on appeal.
The case went to trial in June 2019. The district court granted the parties
joint legal custody of all five children and granted the mother physical care of A.C.,
C.C., J.H., and A.H.1 As for child support, the court determined the father’s income
was $52,469 per year. The court determined the mother’s income was $20,000
per year. The court calculated the parties’ respective child support obligations
based on the split physical care arrangement, offset the respective obligations, and
directed the father to pay the net difference as child support to the mother. See
Iowa Ct. R. 9.14(4) (requiring offset with split or divided physical care
arrangements). The father moved to reconsider, resulting in the district court
modifying the father’s child support obligation and granting him more visitation
1The parties stipulated to modifying the decree such that the father would have physical care of G.C. 4
time, but not otherwise changing the legal custody and physical care
determinations. The father appealed and the mother cross-appealed.
II. Standards of Review
We review marriage-dissolution proceedings de novo. In re Marriage of
Larsen, 912 N.W.2d 444, 448 (Iowa 2018). “Although we give weight to the factual
findings of the district court, we are not bound by them.” In re Marriage of Mauer,
874 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 2016). When assessing witness credibility, “[t]here is
good reason for us to pay very close attention to the trial court’s assessment.” In
re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984). “We will disturb the
district court ruling ‘when there has been a failure to do equity.’” In re Marriage of
Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 698 (Iowa 2013) (quoting In re Marriage of Schriner, 695
N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 2005)). And our overriding concern is the child’s best
interest. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o).
We review trial court decisions regarding attorney fees for abuse of
discretion. Id.
We reverse the district court’s ruling only when it rests on grounds that are clearly unreasonable or untenable. A ruling is clearly unreasonable or untenable when it is “not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law.”
Id. at 698–99 (quoting In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa
2012)).
III. Discussion
a. Physical Care of A.C. and C.C.
The father first argues physical care of A.C. and C.C. should be placed with
him instead of the mother. “Physical care issues are not to be resolved based 5
upon perceived fairness to the spouses, but primarily upon what is best for the
child.” Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (quoting In re
Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007)). “The objective of a
physical care determination is to place the children in the environment most likely
to bring them to health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.”
Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We are guided in this inquiry by the factors listed in
Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019) and the non-exclusive factors enumerated in
In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). McKee v. Dicus,
785 N.W.2d 733, 737 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). The father cites the same arguments
in support of placing physical care of both C.C. and A.C. with him.
We first consider physical care of C.C. There is no prior physical care order
related to C.C. As such, we treat the father’s appeal as to C.C. as an appeal from
an initial custody determination. We will consider “the previous pattern of
caregiving an important factor in an initial custody determination.” McKee, 785
N.W.2d at 737; Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696 (“[T]he successful caregiving by one
spouse in the past is a strong predictor that future care of the children will be of the
same quality.”).
On our de novo review, we agree with the district court and conclude placing
physical care of C.C. with the mother is in C.C.’s best interest. All of the children
have mainly resided with the mother throughout their lives, with the father having
regular visitation. By all accounts, C.C. and the other children are healthy,
generally do well in school, are active in sports, and are well-adjusted and friendly
children. Even so, the father maintains that it is in C.C.’s best interest for him to
have physical care. He asserts the mother and her husband’s plans to move to a 6
community thirty to forty-five minutes away were intended to “drive a wedge”
between the father and the children.2 He also claims the mother has otherwise
withheld information from him and interfered with his relationship with the children.
We are not convinced the move has imposed a significant impediment to
the father’s access to C.C. and the other children. While the mother admitted that
her motivation for moving was in part to put distance between her and the father,
she also explained that the move would move them closer to her husband’s
employer, give her more opportunities to gain employment and further her
education, and would move the family closer to her and her husband’s families.
The modification as ordered by the district court requires the father and the mother
to transfer the children at a public place about equal distance from both homes.
Under these circumstances, we do not believe the mother’s move warrants placing
physical care of C.C. with the father.
Nor are we persuaded the mother’s actions in hindering the father’s
relationship with C.C. rise to such a level as to warrant placing physical care of
C.C. with the father. It is true that the mother has sometimes acted to harm the
father’s relationship with the children. For example, at one point, the mother
installed “spyware” on the children’s phones to monitor their conversations with the
2 In making this argument, the father’s brief included alleged facts regarding an additional move by the mother that are not part of the record, as they purportedly occurred after the record was closed. Of course, since those alleged facts are not part of the record, the father’s brief does not properly cite to the record in support of those factual allegations and thus violates Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.903(2)(f) and 6.904(4). We cannot and do not consider these factual allegations improperly included in the father’s brief. See In re Marriage of Moffatt, 279 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Iowa 1979) (“[A]s a court of review we must ordinarily limit our consideration to the record made at trial or in supplementary proceedings upon limited remand.”). 7
father. However, the record also reveals that the father is not above attempting to
interfere with the children’s relationship with the mother. The father has used
disparaging terms to refer to the mother. The district court also noted that the
father used a mutual acquaintance of the parties to gather evidence in anticipation
of trial. Testimony also suggested that the father was not supportive of the children
participating in therapy to help the children handle the court proceedings, and he
made excuses for G.C. to get out of attending therapy. All in all, neither parent is
blemish-free in terms of fostering the children’s relationship with the other parent.
Having taken into account the blemishes on both sides, we agree physical care of
C.C. was properly placed with the mother.
We next consider physical care of A.C. Unlike the matter of C.C.’s physical
care, which involved an original physical care determination, physical care of A.C.
had already been placed with the mother via a decree entered prior to the start of
these proceedings. Thus, we treat the issue regarding A.C.’s physical care as an
appeal from a modification decision by the district court. The father therefore bears
the burden to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence a substantial change in
circumstances occurred after the decree was entered.” In re Marriage of Harris,
877 N.W.2d 434, 440 (Iowa 2016). He must further prove that he has “a superior
ability to minister to the needs of the children.” Id. This is a heavy burden, and
custody will “be disturbed only for the most cogent reasons.” Id. (quoting In re
Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983)).
For the same reasons the evidence did not justify placing physical care of
C.C. with the father as an initial custody determination, the evidence falls short of
establishing cogent reasons sufficient to justify changing A.C.’s current physical 8
care arrangement from the mother to the father. Even assuming the mother’s
move is a substantial change in circumstances, the father has not introduced
evidence supporting the view that he is the superior parent. A.C. has done well
under the mother’s primary care, which has persisted throughout A.C.’s life.
Without such affirmative proof, the father cannot show he is the better parent. See
In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 37 (Iowa 2015) (noting that even an
“excellent parent who has demonstrated an admirable record of involvement in the
lives of the children” cannot show that the parent should receive physical care of
a child unless the parent can show the parent’s ability to parent the child is superior
to the other parent).
b. Child Support
On her cross-appeal, the mother argues the district court erred in calculating
the amount of child support the father owes to her by (1) excluding at least $13,550
per year in other income claimed to be earned by the father, and (2) improperly
accounting for the cost of health insurance coverage carried on the children by the
father.
(1) The Father’s Income
The first issue relates to other income the mother argues should have been
included in the father’s income for purposes of calculating child support but was
not. On our review of the record, we agree with the district court and conclude this
other income is largely uncertain or anomalous. We determine a parent’s income
from “the most reliable evidence presented.” In re Marriage of Wade, 780 N.W.2d
563, 566 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). The father and the mother introduced competing
evidence to show the father’s income. Ultimately, the district court concluded the 9
father’s evidence was more complete. The district court determined the only
consistent income the father had was from his regular employment. We agree.
While other documents were submitted showing the father had at various times
earned extra money from side jobs doing snow removal, putting up grain bins for
his brother’s business, doing apartment rehabilitation work, and selling woodwork
that he produced, these sources of income were inconsistent or temporary. Thus,
we conclude the district court correctly determined the father’s reasonably
expected income is what he earns from working his regular employment.
(2) Health Insurance Impact on Child Support
Regarding the second issue, the nature of the mother’s claims are not
entirely clear. As near as we can discern from the briefing, the mother makes two
arguments related to health insurance costs that led to a claimed miscalculation of
the father’s child support obligation.
First, the mother argues the district court erroneously failed to take into
account the fact the father was not taxed on the cost of the health insurance
premiums withheld from his wages. The mother cites no authority in support of
her position, and we find no relevant authority addressing interpretation of the
current child support guidelines on the issue of whether the pre-tax nature of
certain withholdings from income should be taken into account in calculating a
parent’s net monthly income. The guidelines themselves provide little guidance or
clarity. “Gross monthly income” is defined by the guidelines as “reasonably
expected income from all sources,” but that definition says nothing about the
taxable nature of the income. Iowa Ct. R. 9.5(1). “Net monthly income” is defined
by the guidelines as gross monthly income less deductions for various taxes 10
“calculated pursuant to the guideline method.” Id. 9.5(2)(a)–(b). The “guideline
method” for computing taxes is set forth in rule 9.6. That rule explains what filing
status to use in making tax calculations, that the standard deduction applies, and
how to apply personal exemptions, but it says nothing about how pre-tax
deductions are to be considered in calculating a parent’s taxes. Id. 9.6(1)–(5).
Although the guidelines themselves provide little clarity on the issue, we
keep in mind the purpose of the guidelines is to provide adequate support for the
children from the parents “in proportion to their respective incomes.” Id. 9.3(1).
Accurate calculation of the parents’ respective incomes would include taking into
account the reality of the tax consequences of each parent’s income when certain
portions of the parent’s income are known to be nontaxable. Therefore, we
conclude that, when certain income of a parent is known to be nontaxable, the
nontaxable nature of that portion of the income should be reflected in the
calculation of the parent’s tax liability and resulting net monthly income. In this
case, we know from the father’s paystubs that the health insurance premiums
deducted from his wages are deducted on a pre-tax basis. As a result, the district
court should not have included the cost of health insurance premiums as part of
the father’s taxable income when calculating his net monthly income.3 As a result
of this miscalculation, the father’s net monthly income was slightly overstated.
3 As previously noted, we agree with the district court’s determination that the father’s income consisted of wages from his regular employment and those wages total $52,469 per year. It is undisputed the father’s health insurance premium cost deducted on a pre-tax basis totaled $3332 per year. Therefore, in calculating the father’s net income, the district court should have calculated taxes on taxable income of $49,137 ($52,469.00 – $3332) with no taxes on the remaining $3332, rather than treating all $52,469 as taxable income. This would result in a lower tax 11
Second, the mother argues the district court erred in making the adjustment
to the parties’ respective child support obligations (i.e., the mother’s child support
obligation for the one child in the father’s care and the father’s child support
obligation for the four children in the mother’s care) for the cost of health insurance,
as required by rule 9.14(5). In particular, the mother asserts the court improperly
overstated the upward adjustment of her child support obligation by factoring in the
portion of the cost of health insurance for four children rather than one, as required
by rule 9.14(5)(b).4 In reviewing the child support worksheets generated by the
district court, it appears that the input error claimed by the mother in fact occurred.
As noted, two mistakes were made in the calculation of child support. The
question then becomes what remedy is appropriate. Frequently, when an error is
made in calculating child support, we remand to the district court for purposes of
recalculating child support after correction of the error. See, e.g., In re Marriage
of Mihm, 842 N.W.2d 378, 386 (Iowa 2014); In re Marriage of Leff, No. 19-0038,
2020 WL 564901, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2020); Hoyle v. Lemon, No. 08-
1897, 2009 WL 1913696, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. July 2, 2009). However, we are
liability and a higher net income for the father than the calculation made by the district court, which treated all $52,469 as taxable income. 4 Rule 9.14(5)(b)(1) states:
The allowable child(ren)’s portion of the health insurance premium will be calculated as follows: (1) For a health benefit plan covering multiple individuals, including the child(ren) in the pending action, the allowable child(ren)'s portion is the amount of the premium cost for such coverage to the parent or stepparent that is in excess of the premium cost for single coverage, divided by the number of individuals enrolled in the health benefit plan, excluding the person providing the insurance, and then multiplied by the number of children who are the subject of the pending action. 12
mindful that the calculation of “net monthly income” as defined by the guidelines
“is not an exact science.” In re Marriage of Washburn, No. 16-2188, 2017 WL
4050178 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2017) (quoting In re Marriage of Kupferschmidt,
705 N.W.2d 327, 332 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)). In this case, remand is not necessary.
After correcting the above-referenced errors, our recalculation of child support
yields figures that are only negligibly different from the child support amounts
ordered by the district court. We will not do the parties the disservice of making
them incur the time and expense associated with a remand that would outweigh
the benefits associated with any potential minor change in the child support figures.
The child support amounts ordered by the district court substantially comply with
the guidelines and adequately meet the purpose of the guidelines to provide for
the children’s best interests by requiring the parents to provide adequate support
for their children in proportion to their respective incomes. See Iowa Ct. Rs. 9.3(1),
9.13 (requiring the court to review stipulations of the parties regarding child support
amounts to ensure “substantial compliance” with the guidelines).
c. Attorney Fees
The mother argues the district court abused its discretion by rejecting her
request for the father to pay her trial attorney fees. “An award of attorney fees
rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal
in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” In re Marriage of Romanelli, 570 N.W.2d
761, 765 (Iowa 1997). “The controlling factor in awards of attorney fees is the
ability to pay the fees.” Id. Here, we find the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to award the mother trial attorney fees. We affirm on this
issue. 13
Finally, the father and the mother request appellate attorney fees. The
mother’s appellate attorney has filed a fee affidavit and the father’s attorney has
not. Appellate attorney fees are not awarded as a matter of right, but we may
award them at our discretion. In re Marriage of Hoffman, 891 N.W.2d 849, 852
(Iowa 2016). “In determining whether to award appellate attorney fees, we
consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to
pay, and whether the party making the request was obligated to defend the
decision of the trial court on appeal.” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561
N.W.2d 385, 389 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997)). Given the mother’s limited income, the
comparatively greater ability of the father to pay, and the mother’s forced obligation
to defend the decision of the district court on appeal, which she did successfully,
we find the father should be required to pay some of the mother’s appellate fees.
However, we are also mindful that the mother was unsuccessful on her cross-
appeal. Id. (declining to award appellate fees to the unsuccessful party). After
balancing the relevant factors, the father shall pay $3000 of the mother’s appellate
attorney fees. Costs on appeal are divided equally between the parties. We reject
the father’s claim for appellate attorney fees.
IV. Conclusion
After our de novo review, we affirm the district court in all respects. We
conclude it is in A.C.’s best interest to remain in the physical care of the mother.
We further conclude it is in C.C.’s best interest for the parties to have joint legal
custody of C.C., with the mother to have physical care. We affirm the child support
obligations imposed by the district court. We also affirm the district court’s decision
not to award trial attorney fees to the mother. We order the father to pay $3000 of 14
the mother’s appellate attorney fees and reject the father’s claim for appellate
attorney fees.
AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.