In re the Marriage of Witt

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0822
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

In re the Marriage of Catherine Lucille Witt and Bradley Adam Witt
Upon the Petition of
Catherine Lucille Witt, n/k/a Katie Lucille Dekker,
Petitioner–Appellant,

And Concerning
Bradley Adam Witt,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County,
The Honorable Terry Rickers, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Mark Simons of Simons Law Firm, PLC, West Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.

Ryan Babich and Sierra Meehan Strassberg of Babich Sarcone, P.L.L.C.,
Des Moines, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Sandy, J.

1
SANDY, Judge.

As children mature, their needs change, and custody arrangements
must sometimes change along with their needs. Here, the district court
determined that shared physical care best serves the needs of three
adolescents navigating blended families, increasing independence, and
evolving challenges. Giving due deference to the district court’s credibility
findings and its careful consideration of the evidence, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Katie L. Dekker and Bradley Adam Witt were married in June 2006.
Their marriage was dissolved by stipulated decree in November 2017. The
parties were granted joint legal custody of their three minor children—P.J.W.,
born in 2008, and twins A.M.W. and E.R.W., born in 2010—with Katie
granted physical care. Brad was granted a schedule of liberal visitation that
included alternating weekends and extended summer parenting time.

Following entry of the dissolution decree, the parties experienced
ongoing difficulties in co-parenting and communication. In February 2020,
Brad filed an application for rule to show cause alleging multiple violations of
the decree, including interference with visitation and failures to consult on
educational and medical matters. That proceeding was resolved later in 2020
by stipulation, without a finding of contempt. As part of that agreement, the
parties modified Brad’s visitation schedule to include extended weekends,
adjusted holiday and summer parenting time, agreed to use a parenting
communication application, and committed to participating in co-parenting
counseling.

Both parties remarried in 2021. Brad married Diane Witt, who has two
children from a prior relationship, and Katie married Christian Dekker, who

2
also has children from a prior relationship. Each household thus expanded to
include stepparents and stepsiblings, and both stepparents shared physical
care of their own children.

In February 2024, Brad filed an application to modify the dissolution
decree, seeking a change in the physical care arrangement. Although Brad
initially requested physical care, the central issue litigated at trial became
whether the existing custodial arrangement should be modified to a shared
physical care schedule. Katie resisted the application and requested
dismissal.

By stipulation of the parties, the district court appointed a Child and
Family Reporter (CFR) pursuant to Iowa Code section 598.12B (2024). The
CFR conducted an investigation, interviewed the parties and the children,
and filed a written report in December 2024, followed by an addendum in
March 2025. In both her written submissions and trial testimony, the CFR
recommended that the parties be awarded shared physical care of the
children on a week-on/week-off schedule.

Trial was held over two days in March 2025. The court heard
testimony from both parents, their current spouses, family members, and the
CFR. The evidence addressed the children’s academic performance, mental
and emotional health, household routines, parenting practices, and the
parties’ respective involvement in the children’s daily lives. The record also
included testimony concerning past conflicts, communication challenges
between the parents, and the evolving needs of the children as they entered
adolescence.

Following trial, the district court entered a modification decree on
March 26. The court found that a material and substantial change in

3
circumstances had occurred since entry of the original decree and that
modification was in the children’s best interests. The court awarded the
parties shared physical care, adopted a week-on/week-off parenting schedule
consistent with the CFR’s recommendation, modified the holiday schedule
accordingly, and adjusted child support based on the shared-care
arrangement. The court left joint legal custody intact.

Katie filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2),
seeking to amend or enlarge the court’s findings. The district court denied
that motion. Katie appeals, challenging the modification of physical care.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitions to modify the care provisions of a dissolution decree are
reviewed de novo. In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015)
(citing Iowa R. App. P. 6.907). But we give weight to the fact findings of the
trial court, which “is greatly helped in making a wise decision about the
parties” by watching and listening to them live. In re Marriage of Vrban, 359
N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984) (citation omitted). We will affirm unless the
trial court “failed to do substantial equity.” In re Marriage of Schiltz,
No. 20-1740, 2021 WL 5105921, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2021) (citation
omitted). The children’s best interests are the “controlling consideration.”
Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 32 (citation omitted). “Utilizing the best-interest
standard ‘provides the flexibility necessary to consider unique custody issues
on a case-by-case basis.’” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
To obtain a modification of physical care, the moving party must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions have materially and
substantially changed since entry of the prior decree and that the changes

4
were not contemplated at the time of the decree, are “more or less
permanent,” and “relate to the welfare of the children.” In re Marriage of
Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983); accord Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at
32. The children’s best interests remain the controlling consideration.
Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 32.

The district court expressly applied this governing framework and
concluded a material and substantial change in circumstances had occurred.
The court identified several developments since entry of the original decree,
including the parties’ remarriages and the integration of stepparents and
stepsiblings into both households; the children’s increasing age and maturity;
the evolving needs of the twins; and the father’s increased and sustained
involvement in the children’s daily lives. These findings are supported by the
record and fall squarely within circumstances Iowa courts have recognized
may support modification when they affect the children’s welfare. See In re
Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695–99 (Iowa 2007); In re Marriage of
Kelly, No. 19-1295, 2020 WL 3571863, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. July 1, 2020).

In awarding shared physical care, the district court appropriately
considered the factors relevant to joint physical care determinations,
including the parents’ ability to communicate, the degree of conflict between
them, and their respective approaches to parenting. Although the court
acknowledged communication difficulties, it found those issues manageable
and not so severe as to preclude shared care. Imperfect communication does
not bar joint physical care where both parents are capable and the
arrangement serves the children’s best interests. See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d
at 698–99.

The district court also gave measured consideration to the children’s
preferences, finding them of sufficient age and maturity for their views to be

5
considered, though not controlling. That approach aligns with longstanding
Iowa law recognizing that a child’s wishes may be considered as one factor
among many in determining physical care. See Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 35;
Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f ). The court’s assessment of the children’s
preferences was informed by the CFR’s investigation and testimony, which
the court found to be thoughtful and thorough. The court relied heavily on
the CFR’s recommendations. Her investigation included interviews with the
parents and children, review of court records and prior orders, and
consideration of educational and mental-health information.

The CFR found both parents to be engaged and capable caregivers and
noted that the children reside in blended-family households during parenting
time with each parent. Although the parties exhibit differing parenting styles
and communication approaches, the CFR did not identify either household
as unsafe or unfit. She expressed concern that ongoing communication
difficulties between the parents have, at times, contributed to conflict and
negatively affected the children, but she concluded those difficulties did not
preclude shared physical care.

She gave particular attention to the children’s individual needs,
especially the twins, noting academic challenges, mental-health concerns,
and the need for greater consistency in addressing recommended counseling
and evaluations. She also addressed the children’s gender-identity concerns,
emphasizing the importance of stability, support, and reduced parental
conflict in addressing those issues.

The CFR acknowledged a serious mental-health incident involving the
mother that occurred several years earlier. While noting the incident’s
emotional impact on the children, she concluded it was not recent and did
not, standing alone, warrant a custodial determination adverse to either

6
parent. She reported that all three children expressed a preference for a more
balanced parenting arrangement and were of sufficient age and maturity for
their views to be considered. After weighing all factors, she recommended a
shared physical-care arrangement on a week-on/week-off schedule,
concluding it would promote stability, increase parental involvement and
accountability, align with the children’s preferences, and serve their best
interests. She reaffirmed this recommendation in a written addendum and in
her trial testimony.

The district court did not abdicate its role to the CFR. Rather, it
independently evaluated the evidence, expressly recognizing that the
ultimate custodial determination rests with the court. Iowa appellate courts
have consistently approved such reliance on a CFR’s recommendations
when, as here, the court exercises its own judgment after considering the full
record. See In re Marriage of Nelson, 23-1893, 2025 WL 542816, at *5 (Iowa
Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2025). The district court carefully considered conflicting
evidence, made credibility determinations, and reached a reasoned decision
grounded in the children’s best interests. We give deference to those findings.
See In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013) (explaining
that even on de novo review, “[w]e give weight to the findings of the district
court, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses”).1 On our de novo

1
Katie argues that neither party requested joint physical care at trial, and therefore
Brad has not met his burden to show a modification should take place. However, during
direct examination, Brad stated that although he was requesting primary physical care, he
ultimately would be agreeable to shared physical care. We read this as a request for shared
physical care in the alternative to primary physical care. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (“If
joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint physical care to
both joint custodial parents upon the request of either parent.”(emphasis added)).

7
review, we conclude the district court did equity in determining that a shared
physical care arrangement best serves the children at this stage of their lives.

Both parties request appellate attorney fees. Appellate attorney fees
are within our discretion to award upon weighing the requesting party’s
needs, the other party’s ability to pay, and the appeal’s merits. McDermott,
827 N.W.2d at 687. After reviewing both parties’ requests, weighing the
parties’ ability to pay, and considering the merits of the appeal, we decline to
award either party appellate attorney fees.

AFFIRMED.

8