Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-967 / 09-0444 Filed February 10, 2010

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KEVIN WILLIAM NELSON AND SAMANTHA JEAN NELSON Upon the Petition of KEVIN WILLIAM NELSON, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning SAMANTHA JEAN NELSON, n/k/a SAMANTHA JEAN MOUW, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John D. Ackerman, Judge.

The respondent appeals from the district court's order modifying the child custody provision of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Alice S. Horneber of Horneber Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellant. Irene A. Schrunk, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.

2 VOGEL, P.J. Samantha (Nelson) Mouw and Kevin Nelson are the parents of two boys, N.N. and J.N. In 2005, when the parties' dissolution of marriage decree was entered, they agreed to joint legal custody, with Samantha having physical care of the boys. After a hearing on Kevin's petition for modification, the district court found a material and substantial change of circumstances existed, such that a change in physical care from Samantha to Kevin was warranted. Samantha appeals that decision. The district court, after considering all the evidence and applying the appropriate factors, found Kevin had carried his burden of proof of demonstrating a substantial and material change in circumstances, that was more or less permanent, and not within the contemplation of the court when the original dissolution of marriage decree was entered. See In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983). The court also found that Kevin had

demonstrated the ability to provide superior care and minister more effectively to the children's well-being. See Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002). To support its conclusions, the district court filed an extremely Within that decision, the court

detailed, fact-laden fifty-six page decision.

assessed the credibility of the many witnesses and found the evidence presented supported the change in physical care. Further recitation of the facts would not add to the district court's analysis or change the conclusion in any fashion. On our de novo review of the record, In re Marriage of Zabecki, 389 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa 1986), we agree with the district court and affirm

3 pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(a), (d), and (e). AFFIRMED.



Download 9-967.pdf

Iowa Law