IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0041

Filed January 11, 2023

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER

AND STEPHANIE MAE HARPER

Upon the Petition of

MATTHEW CALVIN HARPER,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

STEPHANIE MAE HARPER,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.

A wife appeals the district court’s grant of physical care to the husband, 

division of a retirement account, the calculation of her spousal support, and award 

of attorney fees. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Rachel R. McCrate of Gray, Stefani, & Mitvalsky, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for 

appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

Matthew Harper petitioned to dissolve his marriage with Stephanie Harper 

in 2019. When their trial date came around, Stephanie requested a continuance 

because of a potential COVID-19 exposure, which the district court granted. 

Following the dissolution trial nine months later, the district court gave Matthew 

physical care of the couple’s two children, divided Matthew’s retirement accounts 

using their values as of the original trial date, and ordered him to pay $10,000.00

toward Stephanie’s attorney fees. Stephanie appeals, arguing the district court 

should have awarded joint physical care, divided the retirement accounts as of 

their actual trial date, and awarded her full attorney fees. Because joint physical 

care is not in the children’s best interests and we find no abuse of the trial court’s 

discretion in its award of attorney fees, we do not disturb those portions of the 

decree. But, because equity typically requires marital assets be divided on the 

date of the dissolution and we find no facts mandating an alternate date here, we

modify the decree and remand so the district court can file appropriate qualified 

domestic relations orders (QDRO). 

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

Stephanie and Matthew were married in June 2010 and have two children, 

ages ten and seven at the time of trial. After their first child was born, Stephanie 

forwent working outside of the home to care for the child full time and avoid the 

cost of daycare. Matthew continued working as an engineer, a job he still had at 

the time of the dissolution hearing. 

In 2016, Stephanie left the home with both children and did not return. 

Stephanie filed a temporary protective order claiming Matthew was physically 
3

abusing her and the children. Days later, police found her wandering down the 

middle of a street with both children around 2:30 a.m.; they took her to the hospital 

for a mental-health evaluation. Stephanie was hospitalized, but because of the 

protective order, the children could not be placed with Matthew. The Iowa 

Department of Human Services (DHS) removed the children from Stephanie’s 

care, adjudicated them children in need of assistance (CINA), and placed them 

with a family friend. Soon after, the protective order was dismissed and, while the 

CINA cases stayed open, the children were returned to Matthew’s custody. 

Stephanie remained out of the family home until 2018 while she engaged 

with mental-health treatment. During this time, Matthew was the sole caregiver for 

the children. The older child was exhibiting challenging behaviors before 

Stephanie left the home, but Matthew was able to adjust his parenting style and 

establish a routine that mitigated these issues. 

In 2018, Stephanie moved back into the family home. DHS recommended 

the CINA case be closed because Stephanie had addressed her mental-health 

concerns and appeared stable since April 2017, and the juvenile court agreed. 

The relationship began to deteriorate, however, and Matthew petitioned for 

dissolution of the marriage in January 2019. In February, Stephanie left the family 

home and moved into an apartment. Without Matthew’s consent, she took the 

children with her, stating she would only allow him supervised time with the 

children until he agreed to a joint-care arrangement. Matthew filed an emergency 

motion for a temporary injunction requiring the children to reside in the family 

home, which the district court granted. Within hours, Stephanie filed a petition for 

relief from domestic abuse, alleging Matthew had assaulted her—the petition was 
4

dismissed when the court found no assault occurred.1 She also moved to vacate 

the temporary injunction, but the motion was denied. Stephanie and the children 

moved back into the family home. Both Matthew and Stephanie asked their 

mothers to move in to the home.2 This period was rife with tension and a lack of 

communication between the parents, which led to stress for the children,

manifesting in negative shifts in their behavior.

But an April 28 court order on temporary matters named Matthew the 

children’s physical caregiver, required Stephanie to move out of the marital home, 

and established a visitation schedule that remained in place at the time of the 

dissolution hearing. According to that temporary schedule, Stephanie exercised

visitation from Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday afternoon and on alternating 

weekends. The order afforded each parent the right to a phone call each Saturday 

night during the other parent’s visitation. Stephanie was ordered to pay $167.00

per month in temporary child support while Matthew was ordered to pay Stephanie 

$1000.00 per month in temporary spousal support. 

The parties were set to have their dissolution trial in November 2020, and 

in anticipation of it, they filed a stipulation of assets and liabilities.3 This stipulation 

1 During the incident in question, Matthew and Stephanie were arguing in the 

school parking lot about who was taking the children home and Matthew prevented 

Stephanie from removing the younger child from his car. By Stephanie’s own 

admission at the dissolution hearing, she never believed Matthew intended to harm 

her.

2 Matthew testified he asked his mother to move in because he “was afraid that 

[Stephanie] was going to make more false accusations against [him]. [Stephanie] 

responded by having her mother come stay in the house during that time as well.”

3 This judicial district requires a joint pretrial statement before a trial date can be 

set, and part of that statement requests asset values and whether those values 

are contested or not.
5

included the agreed value of Matthew’s retirement account. But, in the days 

leading up to the trial, one of the children was exposed to COVID-19. Both parents 

had spent time with the child before learning of the exposure; still, Stephanie said 

she was uncomfortable being in the courtroom with Matthew because of his 

potential exposure. So, Stephanie moved to continue the trial, and Matthew 

resisted. The court recognized the concern and offered to hold the trial by video 

conference—Matthew agreed, but Stephanie did not. With no agreement over the 

video conference option, the trial was rescheduled at the next available date, which 

was nine months later. In the interim, Matthew successfully requested a 

modification of the temporary child support, and Stephanie was ordered to pay 

$520.85 each month. 

Ahead of the hearing in August 2021, Matthew filed an updated statement 

of his assets and liabilities; one of his retirement accounts had increased by more 

than $120,000.00. Again, the parties signed a stipulation of assets and liabilities,

but one of the account values used by Stephanie was not the new, updated value. 

Adding to the confusion, in the joint pretrial statement filed by the parties, Matthew 

proposed Stephanie be awarded $237,860.00 of the retirement account at issue 

and Stephanie suggested a payment of $159,625.00. Yet at trial, Stephanie’s 

attorney asked that the court use the current value and requested a payout of 

$221,704.03.4 Matthew resisted the recalculation, arguing Stephanie should not 

reap the benefit of unreasonably delaying the hearing. In the end, the district court 

4 The value of the disputed retirement account at trial was $501,021.00. In 

Stephanie’s calculation, she deducted the premarital value of $57,612.92 and then 

divided the remainder in half.
6

used the November 2020 value of $376,862.00, deducted the premarital value, 

and awarded Stephanie one half of that net value or $159,594.53.

During the portion of the trial discussing the physical-care dispute, Matthew

explained his concerns with an award of joint physical care. First, he raised

concerns over Stephanie’s ongoing mental-health issues and some concerning 

notes she wrote in her journal in 2018. Then, addressing her lack of focus, he 

pointed to instances in the past where Stephanie sent the older child to school at 

the regular time in spite of weather delays, was not there when the child got home 

from school, or accidentally tried to give the child two doses of her medication. 

More recently, when the children have returned from their visits with Stephanie, 

they have reported to Matthew they have not taken their medication at all. He also 

had concerns because the children sometimes came back after visits either hungry 

or sick from eating “junk food,” unbathed, and dressed inappropriately for the 

weather. Matthew reported difficulty getting Stephanie to answer emails or text 

messages about the children or answer the phone for his scheduled calls during 

her visits. He offered testimony that the older child’s behavior has improved under 

the current schedule, but there are still times where the older child can be 

aggressive toward the younger child; Matthew believed this behavior went

unchecked by Stephanie.

5

 

On the custody subject, Stephanie emphasized her earlier role as the 

primary caretaker of the children. She reported the work done on her mental health 

5 Matthew gave examples of the younger child’s uncharacteristic behavior 

indicating the issue, including once when the younger child reported the older child

had punched her in the stomach and later proceeded to throw up. 
7

during the CINA case had been helpful. Though she no longer participated in 

counseling or regularly takes medication, she believed she had found ways to 

maintain her mental health. Overall, she asserted she did not have the opportunity 

to demonstrate her growth because of the limited time she was given with the 

children. When asked, Stephanie stated she respected some aspects of Matthew 

but did not really respect him. As for her financial stability, Stephanie testified she 

was now working full-time as a seamstress making $21.75 per hour and earning 

time-and-a-half pay for overtime. 

Stephanie also offered, as exhibits, two promissory notes she had from her 

parents. One reflected a $20,072.50 loan from her parents to pay for attorney 

fees—Stephanie asked the district court to order Matthew to pay her total attorney 

fees of $33,765.08, including the money her parents had fronted. Matthew 

requested $15,000.00 in attorney fees from Stephanie. 

The district court awarded Matthew physical care; it granted Stephanie 

visitation every other weekend from Friday afternoon to Monday afternoon and 

every Tuesday afternoon to Wednesday afternoon. Stephanie was required to pay 

$713.91 each month in child support, and Matthew was required to pay $1000.00

in spousal support each month until January 2026. The district court also divided 

Matthew’s retirement accounts based on their value at the original trial date rather 

than the actual trial date. After comparing each party’s requested attorney fees 

and ability to pay, the district court ordered Matthew to pay $10,000.00 of 

Stephanie’s attorney fees. 

Matthew and Stephanie each filed a motion to reconsider and amend; the 

district court denied both. Stephanie now appeals. 
8

II. Discussion.

Stephanie appeals the dissolution decree, arguing the district court should 

have awarded her and Matthew joint physical care, the retirement accounts should 

have been valued at the date of the dissolution trial, and she should have been 

awarded all of her attorney fees.6 Our review is de novo, but we give weight to the 

findings of the district court, especially its credibility determinations. See In re 

Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 690 (Iowa 2007). 

A. Joint Physical Care.

Both parties agreed to joint legal custody; Stephanie focused in her 

appellate brief on a request for joint physical care. So we do as well. “‘Physical 

care’ means the right and responsibility to maintain a home for the minor child[ren]

and provide for the routine care of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.1(7) (2019). 

When one parent is granted physical care, the other parent is often given the right 

to visitation. Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 691. But, when a court awards joint physical 

care, the parents both “have rights and responsibilities toward the child[ren]

including but not limited to shared parenting time with the child[ren], maintaining 

homes for the child[ren], providing routine care for the child[ren] and under which 

neither parent has physical care rights superior to those of the other parent.” Iowa 

Code § 598.1(4). Courts consider the unique facts of each case to determine if 

joint physical care is in the best interests of the children, ensuring they are placed 

6 Stephanie also argues the district court erred in not granting her spousal support. 

This is factually inaccurate—Stephanie was awarded $1000.00 in monthly spousal 

support for sixty-two months, which was the amount she requested. Insofar as the 

argument is meant to head off any assertion by Matthew that she should not have 

been awarded spousal support, as Matthew has not cross-appealed the issue, we 

address it no further. 
9

“in the environment most likely to bring them to health, both physically and 

mentally, and to social maturity.” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. Importantly, 

“[p]hysical care issues are not to be resolved based upon perceived fairness to the 

spouses, but primarily upon what is best for the child[ren].” Id. The factors courts 

use to determine if joint physical care is in the children’s best interests are: 

(1) “approximation”—what has been the historical care giving 

arrangement for the child between the two parties; (2) the ability of 

the spouses to communicate and show mutual respect; (3) the 

degree of conflict between the parents; and (4) “the degree to which 

the parents are in general agreement about their approach to daily 

matters.”

In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (quoting 

Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 697–99). 

i. Approximation.

Stephanie was undoubtedly the primary caregiver when the children were 

younger, but Matthew has predominantly taken on this role in recent history. The 

goal of approximation is to avoid disruption to the children’s lives, not to give credit 

to the parents for their prior parenting time. See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 698–700 

(“Conversely, where one spouse has been the primary caregiver, the likelihood 

that joint physical care may be disruptive on the emotional development of the 

children increases. . . . The concepts of continuity, stability, and approximation 

thus cut strongly against joint physical care as a quality alternative least disruptive 

to the children and most likely to promote their long-term physical and emotional 

health.”). Since 2016, Matthew has been the constant for these children, providing 

the lion’s share of their care apart from stints of attempted co-parenting. Thus, 

Matthew has the edge on this factor. But approximation alone is not reason 
10

enough to make this decision, especially because both children have been in 

school or daycare since at least 2016. See Berning, 745 N.W.2d at 93 (“We also 

find approximation is mitigated in this case because [the child] has spent a 

considerable portion of his life in daycare or pre-school.”); see also In re Marriage 

of Vaughn, No. 14-0135, 2014 WL 6682052, at * 3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014) 

(finding approximation concerns were allayed because the child would be in the 

same school regardless of the physical-care arrangement, ensuring consistency 

in a daily routine). 

ii. Communication and Respect.

“Given the fact that neither parent has rights superior to the other with 

respect to the child’s routine care, joint physical care also envisions shared 

decision making on all routine matters. Obviously, such decision making requires 

good communication between the parents as well as mutual respect.” In re 

Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Iowa 2007). Even in recent years while 

Matthew has had physical care, he and Stephanie have struggled to communicate 

and are unable to agree even on a mode of communication. Stephanie herself 

testified she respected some aspects of Matthew, but did not really respect him. 

She also stated, “I’ve shied away from . . . a lot of in-depth conversations because 

I just don’t feel like they’ve been productive. . . . I just feel like, given the 

circumstances, it’s been really hard to do that.” She prefers not to speak with him 

in person at exchanges because when “it’s happening in real time . . . you never 

know exactly what’s going to come up and what emotions it might bring up.” But 

Matthew testified that even when he attempted to send her a text message or 

email, Stephanie will not always respond; Stephanie explained she will not respond 
11

if she takes issue with what Matthew is asking. And while in a dissolution “excellent 

communication and cooperation [are] the exception and certain failures in 

cooperation and communication [are not] surprising,” In re Marriage of Ellis, 705 

N.W.2d 96, 103 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005), Matthew and Stephanie have not

demonstrated they could successfully cooperate enough and share care of the 

children. So, this factor weighs against joint physical care.

iii. Conflict.

“The prospect for successful joint physical care is reduced when there is a 

bitter parental relationship and one party objects to the shared arrangement.” 

Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 698. Because of the potential detriment conflict can cause

to the children, “[c]ourts must balance the marginal benefits obtained from the 

institution of a joint physical care regime as compared to other alternatives against 

the possibility that interparental conflict will be exacerbated by the arrangement.” 

Id. at 699. In its dissolution decree, the district court gave great weight to Matthew 

and Stephanie’s “strained and contentious” relationship. We agree the conflict 

between these parents does not promote a grant of joint physical care. In a time 

of attempted coparenting, Stephanie made the unilateral decision to take the 

children out of their home and used time with them as a bargaining chip; when an 

injunction prevented her from doing so, she tried to file for a protective order 

against Matthew without merit. And when they tried to coparent afterwards, 

tensions in the home grew until the district court ordered her to move out and 

established the current care pattern. While Stephanie argues joint physical care 

would lessen the conflict between the parents by equalizing the power balance, 

we cannot agree given the parents’ track record. Ultimately, as long as the focus 
12

remains on what power balance is fair to the parents rather than what is best for 

these children, the conflict will likely never dissipate and the children will suffer its 

effects. 

iv. Daily Matters.

Both parents testified to the differences in their parenting styles, and 

Stephanie argues these types of differences do not necessarily weigh against an 

award of joint physical care. See In re Marriage of Kreager, No. 07-1587, 2008 

WL 4569885, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oc. 15, 2008) (“The district court found, and we 

agree, that although the parties have different parenting styles, neither style is 

necessarily right or wrong and they in fact complement each other.”). Based on 

Matthew’s testimony about how the parents differ in feeding the children, 

medicating the children, and controlling the older child’s behavior toward the 

younger child, we are not convinced these differences are quite so benign. We 

believe Matthew shows more stability in the caretaking role since he began 

handling more of the daily responsibilities. And, the concerns raised by Matthew 

over Stephanie’s ability to deal with daily matters directs us away from a jointphysical-care plan. 

It is clear that both Matthew and Stephanie love their children and wish to 

spend time with them. But, focusing on what is in the children’s best interests and 

considering the factors important to the success of a joint-physical-care plan, we 

affirm the district court’s decision to award the parties joint legal custody with 

Matthew as the physical caretaker. 
13

B. Division of Retirement Accounts.

Stephanie next argues the district court should have divided retirement 

assets as of the actual trial date rather than the initial trial date.7 

When dividing marital assets, “[i]n most cases, it is equitable to value [them]

as of the trial date.” In re Marriage of Milne, No. 20-0228, 2020 WL 5230461, at 

*8 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2020). Nevertheless, there are “occasions when the trial 

date is not appropriate to determine values. Equitable distributions require 

flexibility and concrete rules of distribution may frustrate the court’s goal of 

obtaining equitable results.” In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 1997). These determinations depend on the unique facts of each case. 

Id. 

Matthew argued, and the district court agreed, that Stephanie should not 

glean the benefit of the increase in his retirement account after she delayed their 

trial date. We find this argument unconvincing. The district court was presented 

with evidence of Stephanie’s “questionable motives” for the continuance at the time 

she made the request. Still, in granting the continuance against Matthew’s 

objections, the court had to be “satisfie[d] that substantial justice [would] be more 

nearly obtained” by doing so. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.911(1). While equity requires 

some flexibility, we will not use that flexibility to penalize Stephanie for the district 

court’s decision to grant the continuance—a choice that, on appeal, we presume 

is correct. See, e.g., Countryman v. McMains, 381 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1986). 

7 The district court divided all marital assets based on their value as of the first trial 

date. But Stephanie only asks us to remedy the division of the retirement accounts, 

so we address only those. 
14

We also recognize and do not criticize how people chose to respond to any 

exposure to COVID and do not think a sanction because of that avoidance should 

be assessed here.

As we have noted in other cases, the default is to value assets as of the trial 

date, and this case gives us no reason to deviate from that. See In re Marriage of 

Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (“We continue to use the 

date of trial as the most appropriate date to value assets, while recognizing the 

need for flexibility in making equitable distributions based on the unique 

circumstances of each case. Under the facts of this case, it is neither practical nor 

equitable to use the date of separation to value just one asset.”). The pretrial filings 

presented various values for the district court to consider, so we think it best to 

stick to one date to value all assets.8 See In re Marriage of Bangs, No. 09-0169, 

2009 WL 2951513 at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2009) (“[U]sing the date of trial to 

fix the values of assets . . . avoid[s] asset valuation from becoming a moving 

target.”). In the end, Matthew cannot argue that any efforts made by him, between 

the initial trial date and the date the trial was held, resulted in the increased values 

so that it would be inequitable for Stephanie to realize the same gain in the funds 

he did under the decree.

8 As Matthew noted in one of his pretrial filings, some “values have not been 

updated since the original trial date, which was November 2020. Some assets’ 

values have increased and some have decreased with the market’s ebb and flow 

and as expenses (including attorney fees) have been paid. [Matthew’s] credit card 

debt has increased since November 2020.” We believe all assets should be valued 

as of the same date and not just selected assets that are only affected by the 

market.
15

The parties agreed that $57,612.93 of Matthew’s 401(k) and $18,233.81 of 

his Roth IRA were premarital assets and should be deducted before distribution. 

Matthew’s affidavit of financial status filed with the court just days before the trial 

began, shows the values of the retirement accounts at $501,021.00 in his 401(k)

and $149,961.00 in his IRA. After subtracting the premarital amounts (pursuant to 

the parties’ agreement),

9 $443,408.07 of the 401(k) and $131,727.19 of the IRA 

should be divided. To award an equal share of the marital balances, Stephanie is 

entitled to $221,704.03 from the 401(k) and $65,863.60 from the Roth IRA. We 

modify the property division accordingly.

C. Attorney Fees.

Stephanie’s final argument is that the district court should have granted her 

the complete amount of her attorney fees. We review the grant of attorney fees 

for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255 (Iowa 

2006). “‘Whether attorney fees should be awarded depends on the respective 

abilities of the parties to pay.’ To determine the ability to pay, we review the parties’

entire financial picture, ‘including their respective earnings, living expenses, and 

liabilities.’” In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696, 704 (Iowa 2013) (citations 

omitted). We will not disturb the district court’s award unless it “rests on grounds 

9

“Under our statutory distribution scheme, the first task in dividing property is to 

determine the property subject to division. The second task is to divide this 

property in an equitable manner according to the enumerated factors in section 

598.21 of the Iowa Code.” In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 102 (Iowa 

2007) (internal citation omitted). “[T]he property included in the divisible estate 

includes not only property acquired during the marriage by one or both of the 

parties, but property owned prior to the marriage by a party.” Id. (citation omitted). 

“The district court ‘may not separate [a premarital] asset from the divisible estate 

and automatically award it to the spouse that owned the property prior to the 

marriage.’” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 
16

that are clearly unreasonable or untenable.” Id. at 698. “A ruling is clearly 

unreasonable or untenable when it is ‘not supported by substantial evidence or 

when it is based on an erroneous application of the law.’” Id. at 698–99 (citation 

omitted). The district court was within its right to require Matthew to pay Stephanie 

an amount of attorney fees because she makes a fraction of Matthew’s income; 

and we find no abuse of the court’s discretion in setting the amount at $10,000.00. 

We will not disturb that award. 

Stephanie also requests appellate attorney fees. We have broad discretion 

to grant appellate attorney fees to the prevailing party and consider “the needs of 

the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and the relative 

merits of the appeal.” In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Iowa 1993)

(citation omitted). Because Stephanie was unsuccessful in the majority of her 

claims, we decline to award her appellate attorney fees.

III. Conclusion.

Because joint physical care is not in the children’s best interests and we find 

no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its award of attorney fees, we affirm those 

portions of the decree. But, finding no facts to support using a date other than that 

of the dissolution trial to determine the value of marital assets, we remand to the 

district court with instructions to file the appropriate QDRO necessary to divide the 

accounts appropriately.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.