In Vandewalker v. Landherr, the Iowa Supreme Court examined a mother’s petition to modify the portion of her child custody order designating where her child would go to school. In this decision authored by Justice Mansfield, the Court vacated the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the Worth County District Court, finding the Worth County District Court properly denied the mother’s petition to modify. Justice McDonald joined in the Court’s discussion of the applicability of its 2024 decision on In re Marriage of Frazier to this case. Justice McDonald also wrote an opinion in which he concurred in part and dissented in part.

Gary Landherr and Katie Vandewalker had a child and raised her together before their 2017 separation. In their custody decree, Landherr and Vandewalker had joint legal custody. Landherr had visitation rights each Tuesday, Thursday through Sunday biweekly, and for certain holiday periods. Vandewalker received primary physical care of the child. The custody decree also outlined where their child would go to school.

Eventually, Vandewalker expressed her desire to transfer their child to a school closer to Vandewalker’s home after Vandewalker moved twenty miles away. Landherr disagreed. Though the parties engaged in mediation, they could not come to an agreement on the school transfer. Consequently, in 2022, Vandewalker filed a petition to adjust the custody decree concerning their child’s designated school district.

At a 2023 hearing on the petition, Vandewalker argued the modification should be granted as the child could be at the same school as her half-siblings and spend less time in the car commuting to school. Vandewalker was also worried about the educational quality of the child’s current school. In opposition, Landherr argued the child had formed relationships with educators and friends at her current school, the child’s commute to school had not previously been a concern, that Landherr’s job provided flexibility for him to transport the child to and from school (in lieu of the child taking the bus), and that the child’s current school was better than the proposed school. Ultimately, the district court denied Vandewalker’s modification request. The district court determined this change would not serve the child’s best interests.

The Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision on Frazier as Vandewalker’s subsequent appeal was pending. Leaning on its reading of Frazier, the Iowa Court of Appeals determined “the district court lacked authority to hear the mother’s petition,” affirming the decision of the district court without examining the merits of Vandewalker’s request.

On further review, the Supreme Court held that the district court possessed jurisdiction, ruling that Frazier did not apply to this case and was distinguishable. Frazier involved a disagreement about whether the children of divorced parents should get the COVID-19 vaccine where the parents’ custody decree lacked a vaccination provision. Frazier did not involve a petition for modification; according to the Court, in Frazier, the mother “wanted the courts to referee a medical decision.” However, in this case, Vandewalker was seeking to modify a decree that addressed the issue raised by this proceeding. Consequently, the Court stated, “Notwithstanding principles of res judicata, a judgment that grants continuing relief—like a child custody and support decree—may be modified based on changed circumstances.”

The district court decided against modification, noting that Landherr’s job flexibility would allow Landherr to give more time than Vandewalker to the child’s extracurricular and school involvements, that the child was succeeding academically and emotionally at her current school, that the child’s commute to school was not abnormally long, and that stability should be protected. Ultimately, the Court found the district court’s approach compelling. As a result, the Iowa Supreme Court also determined the child’s best interests did not support adjusting the school-attendance portion of the custody decree. The Court acknowledged that it afforded deference to the determinations of the district court in this case. Consequently, the court of appeals’ decision was vacated, and the district court’s decision was affirmed.

Though Justice McDonald agreed that the district court possessed jurisdiction to review Vandewalker’s petition, he dissented as to the Iowa Supreme Court’s determination that keeping the child at the current school aligned with the child’s best interests. Justice McDonald asserted, “The default rule is that where, as here, one parent has physical care of the child, then the place of the child’s residence determines which school the child will attend,” so the child should go to the school requested by Vandewalker. To further support his position, Justice McDonald pointed to the short commute to the mother’s preferred school, as well as that the longer commute will cut back on the child’s time for school work, extracurriculars, and socializing.

The post Denial of petition to modify child’s designated school in custody decree was proper, Iowa Supreme Court holds appeared first on Nyemaster Goode On Brief.