Jacklynne Jade Herr v. Travis Mitchell See

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 23-0632
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0632 Filed November 8, 2023

JACKLYNNE JADE HERR, Petitioner-Appellee,

vs.

TRAVIS MITCHELL SEE, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, John D. Lloyd,

Judge.

A father appeals the custody decree placing the parties’ child in their joint

physical care. AFFIRMED.

Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West

Des Moines, for appellant.

Alexander S. Momany of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for

appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Langholz, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Travis Mitchell See appeals the custody order concerning his daughter with

Jacklynne (Jacky) Jade Herr. He contends the adopted parenting schedule and

change to the child’s school are not in her best interests. Because both decisions

are in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Travis and Jacky are the parents of S.G.S., who was born in 2015. They

never married and separated when S.G.S. was two. Since their separation, Travis

and Jacky have informally shared care of S.G.S. on a 2-2-3 schedule.1

Since their separation, Travis and Jacky’s situations have changed.

Though Travis still resides in Nevada, Iowa, where the parties lived together prior

to their separation, he began attending school to become a certified emergency

medical technician. He expects to graduate fall 2023 and find part-time

employment as a fire fighter. Jacky, on the other hand, married and moved away

from Nevada to Baxter, Iowa, and now has a son with her current husband.

Prior to trial, S.G.S. attended the Ballard school district. Neither parent

resides in that district. According to her parents, she is a bright, intelligent child.

But the parents have discussed with her teacher that she struggles to pay attention

during class. For this reason and due to family medical history, Jacky initiated

ADHD testing. There were no results by the time of trial.

In April 2022, Jacky petitioned for paternity, custody, visitation, and support.

By February 2023, Travis and Jacky stipulated to all issues but two, and the court

1 The parties rotated the child every two days and alternated weekends and holidays. 3

accepted their partial stipulation. As a part of their stipulation, Travis and Jacky

agreed that they would continue to have joint legal custody and that any resulting

care schedule the court would determine would be termed shared physical care of

S.G.S. Remaining at issue were Jacky’s requests for an alternative parenting

schedule and a change to S.G.S.’s school district, which Travis contested. They

went to trial in March on these two issues, and the district court granted Jacky’s

requests. It ordered joint legal custody and shared physical care to the parties,

adopted Jacky’s proposed parenting schedule, and ordered S.G.S. be enrolled in

the Baxter school district. Travis timely appealed.

II. Review.

Because custody determinations are tried in equity, our review is de novo.

Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give weight to the district court’s fact findings,

especially those considering witness credibility, but we are not bound by them.

Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).

III. Discussion.

At trial Jacky requested that S.G.S. be placed in the Baxter school district,

and that the parenting schedule be changed to a three-week rotating schedule

such that, for the first two weeks the child would be in Jacky’s care Monday through

Friday then with Travis on Friday through Monday morning. Then in the third week,

the child would be with Jacky the entire week except for a Thursday overnight with

Travis. Jacky would then have the third weekend with the child, and the three-

week rotating schedule would begin anew. The court adopted this schedule.

Travis contends the adopted parenting schedule and change in school district are

not in S.G.S.’s best interests. He claims the parenting schedule will upset S.G.S.’s 4

current success and deprives the parties of equal time with their child. He argues

removing S.G.S. from her current school district is similarly disruptive.

Our determination of these issues is based “primarily upon what is best for

the child,” not the parents. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa

2007). “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.” Id. Primary factors we consider are “stability and continuity of

caregiving.” Id. at 696.

While these are distinct issues, we decline to review them in isolation but

consider the entire record. See Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Iowa 2001)

(“[W]e are able to consult the record in its entirety and formulate our own opinion.”).

Affirming one without the other is not in the child’s best interests because it would

result in a substantial commute and frequent, unrealistic exchanges. See Garland

v. Dunn, No. 21-0415, 2021 WL 5106447, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2021) (“Our

case law makes clear that geographic distance alone between co-parents can

make joint-care agreements unfeasible, especially as “the stress of the commute

falls on the child disproportionately.” (quoting Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1,

6–7 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020))).

Travis argues Jacky’s proposed schedule is motivated by her own

convenience. Although Jacky may benefit from the shorter commute, the question

is whether the schedule serves S.G.S.’s best interests. Upon our de novo review,

we agree that it does. The original parenting schedule required S.G.S. to endure

multiple exchanges throughout the week and considerable drivetime. The updated

parenting schedule gives S.G.S. stability with less interruption. It provides her 5

substantial time with both parents, support from extended family, and fosters a

relationship with her half-sibling. See Van Gundy v. Bolton, No. 18-1838, 2019

WL 2145848, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2019) (finding there is “a strong interest”

in keeping half-siblings together (quoting In re Marriage of Orte, 389 N.W.2d 373,

374 (Iowa 1986))).

Similarly, moving S.G.S. to the Baxter school district is in her best interests.

Travis argues against this, emphasizing the differences between Ballard and

Baxter. At trial, he testified that he respects Ballard’s reputation, diversity, and

proximity to both households. He also testified that S.G.S. is thriving academically

and socially in the Ballard School District. But the question is whether the change

is in S.G.S.’s best interests, not whether she was doing well despite her current

situation. See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. While S.G.S. has community

engagement in both households, changing school districts provides her greater

opportunity for involvement. Under the updated parenting schedule, she will be

consistently near her school and extracurricular activities most weekday mornings

while simultaneously maintaining access to her father, his family, and the

community where he lives.

While Travis disputes the district court’s consideration of certain factors, it

does not change the analysis. The district court placed substantial weight on the

chance that S.G.S. may have ADHD or that Travis may start new employment, but

these factors are not dispositive. See Hansen, 773 N.W.2d at 696 (using factors

provided in Iowa Code § 598.41(3) to determine physical care). Instead, we focus

our analysis on objective factors, such as the child’s needs and the parents’

abilities. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2022). Because we find that the updated 6

parenting schedule serves S.G.S.’s best interests regardless of an ADHD

diagnosis or change in Travis’s career, we affirm the district court’s decision.

IV. Disposition.

Because we find the changes in the parenting schedule and school district

AFFIRMED.