IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0123

Filed April 13, 2022

ANGELA LOUISE KASPAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

ANTHONY JOSHUA BIERMANN,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, DeDra Schroeder, 

Judge.

A mother appeals a child custody decision awarding primary physical care 

of her child to his father. AFFIRMED.

Judith O’Donohoe of Elwood, O’Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP, Charles City, 

for appellant.

Megan Rosenberg, (until withdrawal), Hampton, and Richard S. Piscopo, 

Jr. (until withdrawal) of Piscopo Law Firm, P.L.C., Mason City, for appellee.

Anthony Biermann, Mason City, self-represented appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Angela L. Kaspar appeals, challenging the physical care provisions of the 

decree entered December 31, 2020 regarding her child, C.K. The decree awarded 

primary physical care to the child’s father, Anthony J. Biermann. Angela requests 

that she be awarded primary physical care, shared physical care, or increased 

visitation (in descending order of preference). Having reviewed the record, we 

agree with the district court’s rendition of the facts and application of law. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Angela and Anthony have known each other since they were teenagers. 

Angela gave birth to their child, C.K., in early 2010. At the time, Anthony was 

subject to a no-contact order for domestic abuse committed against Angela. The 

one-year protective order expired in November 2010. The parties dispute when 

Anthony learned that he is C.K.’s father. At the latest, a paternity test conducted 

in 2013 confirmed this fact. 

This court acknowledges that Angela has been, at various times, C.K.’s 

primary caretaker. However, her mother Cynthia stepped in as guardian for C.K. 

after requesting a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) finding in October 2012. At 

the time, Angela was dealing with her bipolar diagnosis and alcohol abuse. Angela 

was convicted of public intoxication in September 2012 and August 2013. C.K. 

was transitioned back to Angela’s care in September 2014. Angela and C.K. 

moved to Waterloo at that time so that she could continue outpatient substanceabuse treatment at a facility there. 
3

Anthony was largely absent from C.K.’s life until he was approximately eight 

years old. He was not able to step up after the DNA results were revealed during 

the CINA proceedings because, after pleading guilty to theft, Anthony was in jail 

and then a residential facility from February 2013 to March 2014. Anthony did 

receive approximately five furloughs from his stay in the treatment facility to visit 

C.K. during the period from 2013 to 2014. Anthony states that Angela made it 

clear that she did not want him involved with C.K. after those visits ended. 

Anthony paid no child support until he was ordered to do so in 2017. 

Subsequently, Anthony began to be more involved, initially video chatting with C.K. 

and later meeting in person. In September 2018, Angela asked Anthony to take 

C.K. into his home to protect him from her then-paramour James Clemens. Angela 

acknowledged that C.K. witnessed domestic altercations between James and her 

and that James abused alcohol and drugs, including methamphetamine. Angela 

stated that although James was abusive, she was staying with him to protect the 

pair’s daughter. Anthony’s child support payments were terminated in February 

2019 because C.K. had begun residing with him.

While C.K. was living with Anthony for approximately thirteen months, it is 

alleged that Anthony was a poor caretaker. He would lock himself in his room to 

play videogames and ignore C.K. He was lax in ensuring proper hygiene and failed 

to provide adequate food for C.K. At eight to nine years old, C.K. prepared some 

of his own meals, did his own laundry, and got himself ready for school. He was 

bullied at school for his poor hygiene, including foul-smelling clothes and sores on 

his head. Angela visited a number of times and expressed concern over the 

circumstances, but she took no immediate action to remove him from the situation. 
4

Nor did any of Angela’s other relatives who claim to have visited with C.K. during 

this time, including Angela’s mother, grandmother, father, and brother.

Angela was hospitalized for her mental health twice in October 2019. 

Angela took C.K. back into her care in approximately November 2019. Shortly 

thereafter, she moved into the basement apartment of the same home where 

Anthony resided to live with another man, Trenton. She and C.K. resided with 

Trenton sporadically and also stayed with her mother and grandmother. C.K. 

expressed concern for the fighting that occurred between Trenton and Angela to 

his mental-health therapist. Trenton has a history of mental-health problems and 

used methamphetamine. Angela stated that she last used methamphetamine in 

December 2019. She and Trenton moved to a new home in the same town in April 

2020. Trenton left the home in approximately October 2020. 

Angela’s last hospital commitment for mental health ended about four 

months prior to trial in August 2020. She had an operating-while-intoxicated (OWI) 

conviction in 2017 but claims to only drink alcohol socially now. The AA 

acquaintance who testified in support of Angela had believed she was completely 

sober over the last year. She has full legal custody of her only other child after 

James failed to appear for their custody hearing. Angela testified that she does 

not encourage nor discourage C.K.’s contact with Anthony. However, C.K. 

expressed to a DHS worker in March 2020 that he believed his mom had signed a 

paper so that his father could no longer communicate with him.

A CINA proceeding was initiated in early 2020 but dismissed without further 

action or removal. There were concerns over Angela’s mental health and domestic 

violence by James, as well as a physical altercation between Anthony and 
5

Angela’s then-paramour Trenton. A safety plan was instituted that stipulated C.K. 

would not be exposed to domestic violence or substance abuse and that Angela 

would participate in drug testing.

Anthony has two other children with two other women. He pays no child 

support but visits each liberally. He was convicted of possession of marijuana in 

2015 and claims to have last used the substance about one month prior to trial. 

Angela filed a petition to establish visitation, child support, and medical 

support in January 2020. Trial was held in December 2020. Joint legal custody 

was awarded with primary physical care to Anthony. Angela was ordered to make 

monthly child support and medical support payments to Anthony. A visitation 

schedule was set forth in the event that the parties could not come to their own 

agreement. The schedule provided for Angela to have every other weekend, one 

overnight period each week, alternating holidays, and four nonconsecutive weeks 

of summer visitation with C.K. After the district court’s decree, Anthony filed an 

application for order nunc pro tunc because Angela refused to turn the child over 

to Anthony. Under Angela’s timely appeal, only the allocation of physical care is 

at issue.

II. Review.

Our review of custody proceedings for a child born out of wedlock is de 

novo.1 Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988). We give weight to the 

 

1 The father failed to file a brief. “On the failure of the appellee to file a brief, the 

appellant is not entitled to a reversal as a matter of right, but the court may, within 

its discretion, handle the matter in a manner most consonant with justice and its 

own convenience.” Bowen v. Kaplan, 237 N.W.2d 799, 801 (Iowa 1976) (citation 

omitted). Anthony’s failure to file a brief does not alter our duty to conduct a de 
6

district court’s factual findings and credibility determinations, though we are not 

bound by them. Id.; Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. “Prior cases have little precedential 

value, except to provide a framework for analysis, and we must base our decision 

on the particular facts and circumstances before us.” In re Marriage of Will, 489 

N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992).

III. Analysis.

The governing factor in child custody determinations is the best interests of 

the child. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o). The objective is placement in an 

“environment most likely to bring the children to healthy physical, mental and social 

maturity.” In re Marriage of Bartlett, 427 N.W.2d 876, 877 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988)

(citation omitted). Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) sets forth a nonexclusive 

list of factors for consideration, which include the suitability of each parent as a 

custodian, the parents’ ability to communicate, whether the psychological and 

emotional needs and development of the child will suffer from lack of contact and 

attention from both parents, the previous pattern of caregiving, each parent’s 

support of the other, geographic proximity, and safety. As the district court noted, 

fairness to the parents is not an appropriate basis for resolution. See In re 

Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). Rather, a physical care 

determination aims to place the child in the environment most likely to support the 

child’s physical and mental health. See id.

Here, neither parent has established a particularly favorable case for their 

suitability as a custodian. The parents have continued to reside in relatively close 

 

novo review. See In re W.N., No. 15–0176, 2015 WL 6087624, at *2 n.3 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Oct. 14, 2015).
7

proximity to one another and rely on an extensive familial network for caregiving. 

Angela’s aversion for communicating with Anthony was demonstrated by her 

hiding that she was taking C.K. back into her care in November 2019 by stating 

she was taking him out to dinner and simply never returning him to his father’s 

home. She claims to want C.K. to have a positive relationship with his father but 

does not appear to have made good-faith efforts in this regard. See In re Marriage 

of Will, 489 N.W.2d at 399 (finding a parent’s willingness to encourage contact with 

a noncustodial parent is a significant factor in determining custody). Anthony has 

allowed liberal visitation for Angela and her family members when C.K. was in his 

care. He has also managed working relationships with the mothers of his other 

children to establish an amenable visitation schedule without aid of the courts.

While there is not much more known about Anthony’s other partners, 

Angela has not demonstrated positive relationships to C.K. at home. Her history 

of choosing partners leading to domestic and substance abuse has not offered 

C.K. the stable and safe home he deserves. The background of any adult with

whom a parent seeks to establish a home becomes a significant factor in a custody 

dispute. See In re Marriage of Decker, 666 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003). 

As the district court noted, the companion will have an impact on the children’s 

lives, and the type and manner of relationship the parent has sought to establish 

is an indication of the parent’s priorities. See id.

Although Angela has been a primary caregiver throughout much of C.K.’s 

life, the general preference for continuity does not dictate that she remain the 

custodial parent. See id. at 178. “Insight for the determination of the child’s longrange best interests can be gleaned from evidence of the parent’s past 
8

performance for that performance may be indicative of the quality of the future care 

that parent is capable of providing.” In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 778 (Iowa 2012). 

Here, the mother’s track record is not favorable. While we applaud the progress 

Angela has made over the last year with several negative drug tests in connection 

with employment applications and treatment, we are not inclined to place C.K. 

primarily in such an inconsistent and volatile environment. Like the district court, 

we are under “no illusions that this is a long-term situation.” She has battled 

substance abuse, mental-health issues, and poor domestic partnerships for many 

years. The district court found that she “presents as disingenuous and has a 

definite lack of insight into how her alcohol abuse, substance abuse, mental health, 

and poor choices in men has negatively impacted C.K.” To the contrary, Anthony 

appeared “calm, straightforward, and honest,” as well as “realistic as far as his 

shortcomings.”

Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court’s disposition. 

Despite Anthony’s lack of involvement throughout much of C.K.’s childhood and 

needing to step up his caretaking, Angela’s substance issues and poor decisionmaking support awarding primary physical care to Anthony. See In re Marriage of 

Harris, 499 N.W.2d 329, 331–32 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). Moreover, both parties 

affirmed at the conclusion of trial that they were requesting “all or nothing” in that 

each wanted primary, rather than shared, physical care. Because any request for 

shared physical care by either party was abandoned at trial, the law did not require 

the trial court to make specific findings relative to its failure to award it. At this time, 

Angela also requests increased visitation, specifically every other weekend in the 

summer rather than four nonconsecutive weeks. However, in light of the record 
9

and overall placement, we decline to alter the schedule set forth by the district 

court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s physical care determination and 

visitation schedule.

AFFIRMED.