IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1282

Filed April 27, 2016

JARROD DIERS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

ROBERTTA COFFMAN, 

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Daniel P. Wilson, 

Judge.

Jarrod Diers appeals from the decree granting physical care of his child to 

the child’s mother, Robertta Coffman. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Judy Johnson of Borseth Law Office, Altoona, for appellant.

Van T. Everett of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., Doyle, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2

DOYLE, Judge.

Jarrod Diers appeals from the decree granting physical care of his child to 

the child’s mother, Robertta Coffman. He contends he should have been granted 

physical care of the child. In the alternative, he contends he should have 

received additional visitation. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney 

fees. Because we conclude it is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the 

custody provision of the decree granting Robertta physical care and modify the 

visitation provision of the decree to increase Jarrod’s visitation.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Jarrod and Robertta began a relationship in October 2011.1 At the time, 

Jarrod was enlisted in the Army and stationed in New Mexico, while Robertta 

lived in Ottumwa. Jarrod and Robertta spent approximately one week together in 

Ottumwa in December 2011 while Jarrod was on leave for the holidays. Their 

relationship ended in February 2012.

Not long after her relationship with Jarrod ended, Robertta began a 

relationship with Torrey Des Combaz. When Robertta discovered she was 

pregnant in March 2012, she assumed Torrey was the father based on the 

estimated due date her doctor provided following an ultrasound. Robertta and 

Torrey lived together, along with Robertta’s twelve-year-old child, and treated 

Torrey as the new child’s father.

The child was born in September 2012. Jarrod did not learn of Robertta’s 

pregnancy or the birth until October 2012. The parties give differing accounts of 

 

1 At the time, Robertta was married to Lorentis Culver, though she told Jarrod she was 

divorced. Robertta and Lorentis had married in 2008 and separated the following year, 

but they were not divorced until after the birth of the child at issue in these proceedings.
3

incidents that allegedly occurred from that point in time until the paternity action 

was initiated:

 Jarrod suspected he was the child’s father and claims Robertta told him 

he was—a claim Robertta refutes.

 Jarrod further claims that in November 2012, he took a self-administered 

DNA test he bought on the internet, which confirmed he was the child’s 

father. Robertta denies that any DNA testing occurred at that time. There 

is no documentation of the results of that test in the record.

 Jarrod alleges that Robertta allowed him “visitation” with the child

beginning when the child was six months old, with Jarrod allowed to see 

the child between one and three times per week during the day initially 

and overnight visitation beginning in July 2013. Robertta denies she gave 

Jarrod any visitation, testifying instead that she used Jarrod’s services as 

a “backup babysitter.”

 Jarrod claims Robertta presented him with a forged copy of the child’s 

birth certificate, which listed the child’s last name as Diers and identified 

Jarrod as the child’s father, as well as a forged copy of the child’s social 

security card, which lists the child’s last name as Diers. Copies of these 

documents were admitted into evidence at trial. Robertta denied forging 

any documents or providing forged documents to Jarrod. She testified 

that an Ottumwa police officer questioned her about the documents. It 

does not appear any charges were filed.

 Jarrod alleges Robertta tampered with the labels on the child’s 

prescription medication bottles to hide the fact the child’s last name was 
4

not Diers. At trial, Robertta explained that prescription medication stored 

in a Ziploc bag spilled at her daycare provider’s home. While she 

admitted she handwrote the child’s name on the medication, she denied

writing the child’s last name as Diers and stated the label provided by the 

pharmacy was also contained in the bag.

 Although the parties agree Jarrod provided Robertta with money before 

this action was initiated, they provide different explanations as to why and 

disagree as to the amount. Jarrod claims he gave Robertta $12,500 in 

child support before the paternity action was initiated, and as proof he 

introduced into evidence at trial some of the checks he wrote to Robertta. 

While the checks admitted into evidence total only $5700, Jarrod alleges 

there were additional checks and cash exchanged. “Child support” is on 

the memorandum line of only two checks. The memorandum lines on the 

remaining checks are blank, which Jarrod attributes to Robertta’s act of 

“snatch[ing] these checks out of [his] hand” before he could fill out the line. 

Robertta refutes Jarrod’s claims, testifying instead that Jarrod loaned her 

money to pay off a medical debt when it threatened to harm her credit 

score. She testified she did not receive all of the checks that Jarrod 

introduced at trial. While Robertta could not recall the exact amount 

Jarrod gave her, she testified it was over $1000. She claims that either 

the memorandum lines were blank when she received the checks and 

Jarrod later wrote in “child support” or they were marked as “child support” 

and she never noticed.
5

On April 28, 2014, Jarrod served Robertta with a petition to establish 

paternity, custody, visitation, and support of the child. Robertta disallowed 

contact between Jarrod and the child beginning the same month because she 

alleges Jarrod refused to return the child to her unless she agreed to perform a 

sex act with him. In July 2014, the results of a court-ordered DNA test confirmed 

Jarrod to be the child’s father. Robertta testified she did not allow visitation after 

receiving the DNA results because she feared that Jarrod would not return the 

child to her care without a court order in place.

Visitation resumed after a temporary order was entered in October 2014. 

The order granted Robertta temporary physical care of the child and provided 

Jarrod with visitation every Wednesday evening and alternating weekends. 

Jarrod filed a motion to reconsider the temporary custody order, requesting his

visitation be increased, and Robertta responded with her own motion asking the 

court to decrease visitation. The court denied both motions.

In February 2015, Robertta moved in with her boyfriend, Chris. Two 

months later, Jarrod filed a motion to modify the temporary custody order 

because Chris was being investigated for sexual abuse of the child. The 

investigation was initiated after Jarrod reported the alleged sexual abuse to the 

Ottumwa Police Department and the Iowa Department of Human Services 

(DHS). The DHS report determined the allegation was not confirmed. The police 

officer investigating the matter reported to the guardian ad litem (GAL) that he did 

not “find anything” and was closing the case. The court denied the motion to 

modify.
6

This matter was tried in June 2015. At that time, Jarrod was living with his 

fiancée, Heidi. Robertta continued to live with Chris. Although Robertta and 

Chris were not engaged at the time of trial, the two had plans to marry.

The GAL provided the trial court with a report containing her 

recommendations for custody and visitation and testified at trial. The GAL 

recommended Robertta retain physical care of the child subject to Jarrod’s 

visitation. The GAL recommended visits continue on alternating weekends but 

with extended hours, beginning on Friday at 5:30 p.m. and ending on Monday at 

5:30 p.m. Because weekend visitation would be expanded to end on Monday 

evening and conflict arose during the exchanges, the GAL recommended the 

weekly mid-week visitation be discontinued. The GAL also recommended four 

weeks of summer visitation but added “those four weeks should be separated. 

That visitation should be no more than two weeks in length. And then separated 

where [the child] would go back to [Robertta], and then another two weeks.”

On June 25, 2015, after hearing from the parties and their witnesses, the 

district court entered its decree. It found both parents were capable and loving 

with significant support systems to assist them in raising the child. However, the 

court noted the child had been in Robertta’s care since birth. It further found the 

child was closely bonded with Robertta’s twelve-year-old daughter. The court 

granted Robertta physical care and ordered Jarrod to pay Robertta $653 per 

month in child support. Jarrod was granted liberal visitation to be determined by 

the parties with a default visitation schedule provided in the event the parties 

could not agree on visitation. The default visitation schedule eliminated the midweek visits and awarded Jarrod visitation on alternating weekends, beginning at 
7

6:00 p.m. on Friday and ending at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Jarrod was also 

awarded holiday visitation and three non-consecutive weeks of visitation in the 

summer. The court further ordered the child’s surname be changed to Diers.

II. Scope and Standard of Review.

We review custody determinations de novo. McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 

733, 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). We are not bound by the district court’s factual 

findings, though we give them weight. Id. This is especially true with regard to 

determinations of witness credibility because the district court has the ability to 

listen to and observe the parties and their witnesses. Id.

III. Physical Care.

Our overriding consideration in awarding custody is the child’s best 

interests. Id. The goal is to place the child in the care of the parent who is best 

able to minister to the child’s long-range best interests. See In re Marriage of 

Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1974). In making this determination, we 

consider the list of factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2013), along 

with other relevant factors. See In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 

(Iowa 2007). We seek to place the child in the environment most likely to foster 

physical and mental health, as well as social maturity. Phillips v. Davis-Spurling, 

541 N.W.2d 846, 847 (Iowa 1995).

Jarrod argues he is better equipped than Robertta to minister to the child’s 

best interests focusing on three factors we consider in determining physical 

custody: a parent’s alienation of the child from the other parent, a parent’s moral 
8

misconduct, and a parent’s history as the child’s primary caretaker.2 We address 

each of these factors in turn.

A. Alienation of the child from the other parent.

Jarrod first cites what he considers to be Robertta’s attempt to alienate the 

child from him as a factor that weighs in favor of granting him physical care of the 

child. He cites to Robertta’s decision to deny him visitation with the child and 

what he characterizes as Robertta’s failure to include him in decision-making with 

regard to the child as evidence of her attempt at alienation.

Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(c) states: “The court shall consider the 

denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact 

with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the 

proper custody arrangement.” The undisputed evidence shows Jarrod did not 

receive visitation with the child from approximately April 2014 through October 

2014. Jarrod claims Robertta’s decision to deny him visitation with the child 

during that time militates against awarding her physical care.

Robertta claims she refused to provide Jarrod visitation because Jarrod 

refused to return the child at the end of a visit in April 2014 unless she agreed to 

perform a sex act with him. At that time, Jarrod’s paternity had not yet been 

established. After the results of the DNA test revealed Jarrod to be the child’s 

father in July 2014, visitation did not resume. Robertta testified she was afraid 

 

2

Jarrod argues the trial court did not give enough weight to the first two of these factors 

while giving too much weight to the third. Because our review is de novo, we need not 

address the weight the trial court gave the evidence. See In re Lyman, No. 07-1590, 

2008 WL 2042614, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 14, 2008). Instead, we make our 

determination anew based on the record before us but make special note of the factors

to which Jarrod draws our attention.
9

that if she allowed Jarrod to take the child for a visit, Jarrod would not return the 

child to her care. However, the evidence is undisputed that once the temporary 

order regarding custody and visitation was entered, Robertta abided by it. There 

is nothing to suggest she will not continue to follow any visitation schedule 

ordered by the court.

Jarrod cites other incidents as evidence Robertta attempted to alienate the 

child from him. Specifically, he claims Robertta systematically excluded him from 

parental decision-making with regard to the child, failed to give him proper notice 

of doctor’s appointments, and failed to provide him with a copy of the child’s 

insurance card. He also claims Robertta’s family is unwilling to support his 

relationship with the child.

The evidence shows the parties’ relationship has been contentious since 

their relationship ended. This is evident in the tone of an email Jarrod sent 

Robertta in October 2012 after learning she had given birth to a child. Jarrod 

wrote: “When am I going to get my stuff back? Hows the new baby and whos 

baby is it? The guy you cheated on me with? All i have to say is wow you work 

fast lol.” By all accounts, the exchanges of the child that accompanied visitation 

were emotionally-charged. While each party blames the other for the conflict, the 

evidence shows neither parent is without fault.

We note Jarrod’s contribution to the conflict between the parties by 

making accusations against Robertta and her family. For instance, during the 

investigation into Chris’s alleged sexual abuse of the child, Jarrod and his 

fiancée, Heidi, expressed concern regarding Robertta’s overall care of the child, 

stating the child arrived at visitations wearing dirty clothes and soiled diapers and 
10

often had cuts and bruises that they felt were not appropriate. Jarrod stated he

believed that Robertta and her family were beating the child “to make [the child] 

not like [him],” and he informed the DHS worker he planned to keep the child at 

the end of the next visit for this reason rather than returning the child to 

Robertta’s care as set forth in the temporary order. Jarrod and Heidi also 

expressed their concern the child was being “emotionally abused” in Robertta’s 

care, stating the child “appeared to be in emotional distress” and demonstrated 

behaviors that were not age appropriate. Although the worker “asked multiple 

times what emotional distress and [the child] not developing at an age 

appropriate level meant to Heidi and Jarrod,” neither Jarrod nor Heidi elaborated, 

though they “continued to make these statements with no further information.” 

The DHS worker opined that none of the pictures Jarrod and Heidi had taken of 

the scratches and bruises they identified on the child at the start of each visit 

“stood out as patterned injuries or injuries which could be suspect of child 

abuse.” Those who observed the child in both parents’ homes, like the DHS 

worker and the GAL, as well as those who had close contact with the child during 

the time period in question, like the child’s pediatrician and daycare provider, saw 

no evidence of abuse or suggestion of alienation by either party. Simply put, 

Jarrod’s claims regarding Robertta are not credible.3

The evidence shows both parents have at times behaved in a manner 

contrary to the child’s best interests. Each has made accusations against the 

 

3 We also note our concerns about Jarrod’s testimony at trial. While Jarrod was able to 

testify with great specificity on direct examination when questioned by his lawyer, his 

testimony was much less definite on cross-examination, when Jarrod frequently could 

not recall specific details about events he had just testified about moments earlier. 

Jarrod’s behavior at trial negatively impacts his credibility.
11

other while blaming the other for the discord. While Robertta’s behavior has not 

been admirable at all times, it has not been worse than Jarrod’s, leaving the 

parties on even footing with regard to this factor.

B. Moral misconduct.

Jarrod next argues Robertta’s moral misconduct weights against granting 

her physical care of the child. He cites her failure to inform him of her pregnancy, 

as well as his allegation that she intentionally led two men to believe they were 

the child’s father.

We disagree with Jarrod’s assessment of the evidence regarding 

Robertta’s behavior before paternity was established. Given the circumstances, 

it was not unreasonable for Robertta to believe Torrey was the child’s father. 

Robertta had already begun a relationship with Torrey when she learned she was 

pregnant, and the projected due date provided by her doctor indicated the child 

would have been conceived after Jarrod returned to New Mexico. Torrey 

believed he was the father’s child and acted as the child’s father. He was listed 

as the child’s father on the birth certificate and had the child’s name tattooed on 

his arm. Despite Jarrod’s claims he had visitation with the child, including 

overnight visits beginning in July 2013, Torrey was unaware of any role Jarrod 

played in the child’s life. Torrey did not discover the possibility that someone 

else might have fathered the child until the paternity action was initiated in April 

2014. There is insufficient credible evidence to show Robertta intentionally 

misled either Jarrod or Torrey regarding paternity.

Even assuming Robertta misled Jarrod regarding the child’s paternity, this 

factor alone is not decisive of the matter of custody. See In re Marriage of 
12

Hornung, 480 N.W.2d 91, 93-94 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (noting that while a 

parent’s “moral misconduct” is a consideration in making custody determinations, 

it is only one factor to be considered). Our governing consideration must be the 

child’s best interests. See In re Marriage of Ballinger, 222 N.W.2d 738, 740 

(Iowa 1974). Custody determinations are not made to reward one parent or to 

punish the other. See id. Instead, we must determine which parent can most 

effectively provide for the child’s long-range best interests. See id. The trial 

court found the child “is healthy, happy, and thriving in Robertta’s care.” As such, 

the court determined granting Robertta physical care was in the child’s best 

interests, and we agree. See In re Marriage of Dawson, 214 N.W.2d 131, 133 

(Iowa 1974) (determining children’s best interests were served by granting the 

mother physical care where the children were “healthy and well cared for,” and

“thrived” while in their mother’s care, even though her moral misconduct and 

dishonesty about her conduct while testifying “weighed heavily against her,” 

because the mother’s conduct had to be balanced “against the best long-run 

prospects of the children”).

C. Past caretaker.

The last factor Jarrod cites is Robertta’s role as the child’s physical 

caretaker. While this factor weighs in favor of granting Robertta physical care of 

the child, Jarrod argues against giving the factor more weight than it deserves.

“The role of primary caretaker is . . . critical in the development of children, 

and careful consideration is given in custody disputes to allowing children to 

remain with the parent who has been the primary caregiver.” In re Marriage of 

Wilson, 532 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Although the parent who 
13

has traditionally served as the child’s caretaker will not necessarily be granted 

physical care of the child, id., it is a factor we must consider, Iowa Code 

§ 598.41(3)(d) (listing “[w]hether both parents have actively cared for the child 

before and since the separation” as a factor to consider in determining custody). 

Our courts have recognized the importance of maintaining the child’s emotional 

stability and the importance of the stability in the relationship between the child 

and the child’s caretaker. See In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759, 762 

(Iowa Ct. App. 1998).

D. Conclusion.

After weighing Robertta’s history as the child’s caretaker along with other 

relevant factors before us and giving the appropriate deference to the trial court, 

we conclude the child’s best interests are served by placing the child in the care 

of Robertta. Accordingly, we affirm the child custody provision of the decree.

IV. Visitation.

Jarrod argues in the alternative that the visitation awarded by the trial 

court does not assure the child has maximum contact with him. Specifically, he 

argues weekend visitation should be extended to include some weekday time 

prior to the child entering school, specifically, Wednesdays from 4:00 p.m. until 

8:00 p.m. each week. He requests every other weekend visitation begin at 

5:00 p.m. on Thursday and end at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. He also requests he 

receive additional visitation in the summer, noting the fact he does not have a 

nine-to-five job allows him to spend more time with the child. Jarrod would like 

the child in his care “for a majority of the summer or in the alternative alternate 

full weeks.”
14

As with custody determinations, our primary concern in determining 

visitation rights is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 

N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Generally, liberal visitation rights are in 

the child’s best interests. Id. We do not consider the best interests of the parent 

seeking visitation. In re Marriage of Brainard, 523 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 1994).

Here, the trial court ordered liberal visitation between Jarrod and the child 

to the extent agreed upon by the parties. We note the default visitation schedule 

set forth in the decree is the minimum period of visitation allowed; the parties 

may agree to a more expansive visitation schedule and are expected to actively 

encourage positive relations between the other parent and the children. See In 

re Marriage of Toedter, 473 N.W.2d 233, 235 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). Although the 

parties have the discretion to increase the amount of visitation between Jarrod 

and the child, we conclude the default visitation schedule provided in the decree 

does not provide the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional 

contact with both parents, as required by Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a). To 

offset the termination of midweek visits, we modify the default visitation schedule 

to adopt the GAL’s recommendation and extend weekend visits to end at 5:30 

p.m. on Monday when school is not in session or at the commencement of the 

school day when the child’s school is in session.

We also modify the summer visitation provided in the decree to instead

grant Jarrod the ability to extend four of his weekend visits to end at 5:30 p.m. 

the following Friday. This modification grants Jarrod four week-long visits with 
15

the child, while guaranteeing the child one uninterrupted week in Robertta’s care 

between visits.

V. Appellate Attorney Fees.

Both parties request they be awarded $8000 in appellate attorney fees. 

Whether to award appellate attorney fees is within our discretion. Spiker v. 

Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347, 360 (Iowa 2006). An award of appellate attorney fees 

depends on three factors: (1) the needs of the party making the request, (2) the 

ability of the other party to pay, and (3) whether the party making the request was 

obligated to defend the trial court’s decision on appeal. Id. We decline to award 

either party attorney fees.

Two-thirds of the costs of the appeal are taxed to Jarrod and one-third is 

taxed to Robertta.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.