Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-950 / 11-1112 Filed February 1, 2012

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY JAMES FERGUSON AND HEATHER FERGUSON Upon the Petition of JEFFREY JAMES FERGUSON, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning HEATHER FERGUSON, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Timothy J. Finn, Judge.

A mother appeals a ruling modifying the physical care provision of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Douglas W. Beals of Moore, McKibben, Goodman, Lorenz & Ellefson, L.L.P., Marshalltown, for appellant. John J. Haney of Hinshaw, Danielson, Kloberdanz & Haney, P.C., Marshalltown, for appellee.

Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.

2 VAITHESWARAN, P.J. A mother appeals a ruling modifying the physical care provision of a dissolution decree. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Jeff and Heather Ferguson married and, in 2002, had a daughter. When they divorced in 2004, they agreed Heather would assume physical care of the child, subject to visitation with Jeff. Over the next few years, Heather was involved in several relationships, some of them unstable. In 2010, Jeff petitioned to modify the decree. Following a hearing, the district court granted the petition, citing Heather's pattern of poor relationships with men, the child's spotty school attendance while in her care, the child's assumption of "emotional responsibility for the welfare of the family," and certain other circumstances. The court ordered a gradual transition of the child to Jeff's care. II. Analysis On appeal, Heather contends that Jeff did not establish a material and substantial change of circumstances since the decree was entered or superior caretaking ability. See In re Marriage of Rierson, 537 N.W.2d 806, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (articulating the standard that must be met in order to change the custodial provisions of a dissolution decree). Reviewing the record de novo, we disagree. See id. (setting forth standard of review). As noted, Heather was involved in a series of troubled and troubling relationships. The first involved domestic abuse. The second was also volatile

3 and ended dramatically when, following an argument, Heather threatened to harm herself with a knife. Heather conceded her daughter was present during this incident and was shaken up by it. Heather's third relationship was with a man who secretly abused alcohol and who fell down the stairs while intoxicated and while holding Heather's child from her second relationship. Although Heather immediately ended her

involvement with this man, she soon allowed a fourth man to move into the family home. There was no evidence that Heather or the children were physically

harmed by the fourth man, but the pattern of her relationships prompted the district court to voice a concern about the "emotional stability of the environment" in which the child was being raised. We agree with the district court that the first three relationships were not healthy for mother or child. The second, in particular, was nothing short of

traumatic for the young girl. Notably, that relationship spanned two years and, by Heather's own admission, was marred by verbal and mental abuse. Also of concern was the child's school attendance. The child missed

thirty-two days when she was in first grade and several days in second grade. Some of these absences resulted from standard childhood illnesses such as pink eye and fever. But, by the mother's own admission, others were feigned. On the days of feigned illnesses, Heather did not call the child's bluff and insist she attend school. There is also evidence to support the district court's finding that the child assumed "emotional responsibility" for the welfare of her family. Jeff's mother testified that the child was "living her life through her mother as a stressed little

4 girl and not like a little eight-year-old girl." She noted that the child was aware of police calls to her mother's home and expressed concern about child support, both of which were not "eight-year-old concerns." Jeff similarly testified that the child was "a well-adjusted kid" but did not need "to be living as a young adult." We are also troubled by evidence that Heather failed to communicate with Jeff about the child's welfare or foster communication between the child and Jeff. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY JAMES FERGUSON AND HEATHER FERGUSON Upon the Petit

Iowa Law