IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1108

Filed July 3, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KENT J. DEUTMEYER

AND KORTNEY L. DEUTMEYER 

Upon the Petition of

KENT J. DEUTMEYER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

And Concerning

KORTNEY L. DEUTMEYER, n/k/a KORTNEY L. BURD,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, 

Judge.

A petitioner appeals the denial of his petition to modify the custodial 

provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Victoria D. Noel of The Noel Law Firm, Clinton, for appellant.

Dustin A. Baker of Henkels & Baker, PC, Dubuque, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.
2

MAY, Judge.

Kent and Kourtney Deutmeyer were married in 2011. They have one child, 

H.D., who was born in 2011. In March 2016, the district court entered a decree 

dissolving their marriage. Kourtney was granted sole legal custody and physical 

care. Kent was granted supervised visitation.

In August 2016, Kent filed the present modification action. Kent’s petition 

asks the court to “modify[] custody of the minor child to [Kent] and grant[] him 

Primary Physical Care of the minor child.”

On May 23, 2018, the district court ordered that Kourtney “shall continue to 

exercise sole legal custody.” Kent appeals. Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. 

P. 6.907. 

On appeal, Kent asserts this court should reverse and remand for entry of 

an order awarding him sole legal custody as well as physical care. “A party seeking 

modification of the legal or physical custodial provisions of a dissolution decree 

must meet a high standard.” In re Marriage of Sawyer, No. 09-0558, 2009 WL 

2514176, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2009).

To change a custodial provision of a dissolution decree, the applying 

party must establish by a preponderance of evidence that conditions 

since the decree was entered have so materially and substantially 

changed that the children’s best interests make it expedient to make 

the requested change. The changed circumstances must not have 

been contemplated by the court when the decree was entered, and 

they must be more or less permanent, not temporary. They must 

relate to the welfare of the children. A parent seeking to take custody 

from the other must prove an ability to minister more effectively to 

the children’s well being. The heavy burden upon a party seeking to 

modify custody stems from the principle that once custody of children 

has been fixed it should be disturbed only for the most cogent 

reasons.

Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983)).
3

In his brief, Kent discusses certain alleged changes in circumstances. But 

Kent also acknowledges that, to prevail, he must also carry the “heavy burden of 

showing that he has the ability to provide superior care” for the child. Nevertheless, 

Kent does not discuss his caregiving at all. Although he has several criticisms of

Kourtney and her parenting, he offers no explanation as to why his caregiving 

would be superior to Kourtney’s. Cf. L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699, 703 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 2013) (“Where a party has failed to present any substantive analysis or 

argument on an issue, the issue has been waived.”). Moreover, a review of the 

record reveals scant evidence of Kent’s caregiving abilities to compare against

Kourtney’s. See In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 37 (Iowa 2015) 

(reviewing record and concluding the father failed to establish that he had the 

superior “ability to minister to the needs of the children”). 

We conclude, therefore, Kent has failed to “prove an ability to minister more 

effectively to the [child]’s well being.” Frederici, 338 N.W.2d at 158; see also

Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d at 37 (noting if one parent cannot establish a superior ability 

to care for the child, then “custody should not be changed” (quoting In re Marriage 

of Rosenfield, 524 N.W.2d 212, 213 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994)). As a result, we also 

conclude Kent has failed to carry the “heavy burden” of showing that the child’s 

best interest requires a change in custodial arrangements. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED.