IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1240

Filed May 8, 2024

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BRANDIS KAY COWERN

AND DAVID READ COWERN

Upon the Petition of

BRANDIS KAY COWERN,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

DAVID READ COWERN,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.

Husband appeals from a district court order modifying the physical-care 

provision of a dissolution-of-marriage decree. AFFIRMED.

Kolby P. Warren of McCormally & Cosgrove, PLLC, Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Chira L. Corwin of Corwin Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.
2

LANGHOLZ, Judge.

David Read Cowern—who goes by his middle name, Read—appeals from 

the district court’s order modifying the physical-care provision of the decree 

dissolving his marriage with Brandis Cowern. The original decree placed Read 

and Brandis’s two children in their joint legal custody and joint physical care. But 

since the decree, Read and Brandis have proved unable to effectively 

communicate, causing recurring conflict when carrying out the joint-physical-care 

arrangement. As a result, the district court modified the decree to place the 

children in Brandis’s physical care with only visitation for Read. On appeal, Read 

does not dispute the need to modify the decree. But he asserts the district court 

should have instead granted him physical care or awarded greater visitation.

We agree with the district court and the parties that the decree should be 

modified. Our review of the record reveals a serious breakdown in communication 

that undermines the continued viability of joint physical care. Deciding which 

parent should have physical care presents a closer call. While Read indeed has 

positive parenting qualities and no doubt loves the children, we agree with the 

district court that it is in the children’s best interests to be placed in Brandis’s 

physical care. The modified decree prioritizes stability by extending the children’s 

stay with Brandis, setting firm drop-off and pick-up times, and establishing

transportation obligations—all of which will reduce points of conflict and serve the 

children’s best interests. For these same reasons, we cannot say the amount of 

Read’s visitation is inappropriate. We also award Brandis $3000 in appellate 

attorney fees as she requests. 
3

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Read and Brandis were married in 2008. They share two children—a son 

and a daughter. In 2019, Read and Brandis divorced, and the decree provided for 

joint legal custody and joint physical care. Relevant here, the physical-care 

provision required Read and Brandis to “work together on a parenting plan that 

best serves the interests of the minor children.” But if they could not agree, the 

decree provided a rotating 2-2-3 schedule—where they would exchange the 

children every two or three days. The schedule did not specify what time drop-offs 

or pick-ups would be, nor did it set forth which parent was responsible for 

transporting the children to or from the other parent’s home.

Relations between Read and Brandis did not improve after the divorce. 

Read was held in contempt for willfully violating the decree. Read’s ensuing

noncompliance resulted in mediation, which showed he was in default on his child 

support and alimony obligations and had failed to transfer Brandis’s share of a 

retirement account. And Read was barred from the children’s school for an entire

school year after two incidents involving Brandis—one when he created a scene 

upon seeing Brandis also present at the school, and another when discussing 

Brandis and another family inappropriately. 

In August 2021, Brandis petitioned to modify the decree’s physical-care 

provision, seeking physical care of the children. Read’s answer denied Brandis’s 

allegations and did not include a cross-claim for modification. But he still requested

that the children be placed in his physical care. The matter proceeded to a twoday bench trial in April 2023, where each parent continued to seek physical care. 
4

The district court granted Brandis’s petition to modify the decree, finding the 

evidence showed a degree of discord between the parents that required 

modification. The court granted Brandis physical care and Read visitation, setting 

a new schedule with established and consistent 6:00 p.m. pick-up times and 

transportation obligations. Under the new schedule, Read has four overnights with 

the children every fourteen days—every Wednesday night and every other Friday 

and Saturday night. After unsuccessfully moving for reconsideration of the 

modification order, Read now appeals.

II. Modification of Physical Care

Parties seeking to modify the physical-care placement in a dissolution 

decree must show that because of material and substantial changes in conditions 

since the decree—more or less permanent and not originally contemplated by the 

court—the children’s best interests require altering the placement. In re Marriage 

of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). The moving party’s burden is heavy—

the law prioritizes stability for children, so only “the most cogent reasons” will justify 

disrupting an established physical-care framework. In re Marriage of Frederici,

338 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Iowa 1983). 

To that end, our guiding principle is “what is best for the child”—not what is 

“fair[est] to the spouses.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695

(Iowa 2007). We consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) and 

those discussed in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). 

See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696. If modification is warranted, we award physical 

care to “[t]he parent who can administer most effectively to the long-term best 

interests of the children and place them in an environment that will foster healthy 
5

physical and emotional lives.” In re Marriage of Walton, 577 N.W.2d 869, 871 

(Iowa Ct. App. 1998).

We consider all these issues de novo. In re Marriage of Harris, 877 

N.W.2d 434, 440 (Iowa 2016). Still, modification petitions rise and fall on their own 

facts—“[p]rior cases have little precedential value.” Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d 

365, 368 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002). So we give weight to the district court’s firsthand 

assessment of the evidence and witnesses, even if we are not bound by it. Id.

To begin, the parties agree that modification is warranted. On appeal, Read 

only argues the district court erred in not awarding him physical care or not 

increasing his visitation—he never asks to preserve joint physical care. And we 

agree there is ample evidence in the record to show a substantial change in 

conditions warranting modification. 

The breakdown between Read and Brandis’s ability to communicate has 

rendered the current scheme inconsistent and confusing for the children. A review 

of the parties’ communications shows repeated instances of the parties agreeing 

to a particular pick-up time or childcare schedule, only to have Read alter it at the 

last minute. Read often knowingly disregarded Brandis’s work hours—scheduling 

or trying to schedule appointments, activities, or pick-ups during her work or 

commute hours. And throughout their discussions, Read is often condescending 

and insulting, which makes collaborating difficult.1

1

In fairness, Brandis at times also communicates poorly. But on the whole, we 

agree with the district court’s assessment that Read “has been unreasonably 

uncooperative with [Brandis] in shared-care-parenting” of their children.
6

While the decree only affords a right of first refusal—to give the other parent 

the first chance to care for the children when the parent with care cannot—for outof-town trips, Brandis often asks Read if he wants to watch the children before she 

hires a babysitter. Read does not extend the same courtesy. And when asked to 

watch the children, Read would sometimes agree only if Brandis sacrificed 

additional nights with the children, paid him, or “agree[d] to do away with all future” 

alimony. 

We will uphold physical-care modifications when discord between the 

parents undermines the continuing viability of joint physical care. See, e.g., In re 

Marriage of Wood, No. 15-2204, 2016 WL 4384407, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) 

(explaining “post-dissolution hostility and the inability to communicate is sufficient 

to establish a substantial change in circumstances”); Melchiori, 644 N.W.2d at 368; 

Walton, 577 N.W.2d at 870. Because we agree with the district court and the 

parties that modifying joint physical is warranted, we proceed to the tougher 

question—whether it is in the children’s best interests to be placed in the physical 

care of Brandis rather than Read.

While Read indeed has positive parenting qualities and no doubt loves their 

children, Brandis meets her burden to show that placing their children in her

physical care is in the children’s best interests. One factor we consider is 

“[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the 

child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e); see also In re Marriage of Barnhart, 

No. 12-2251, 2013 WL 2372309, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). Read does not see 

a problem with how he speaks to Brandis, testified that the children call his new 

wife “Fun Mom,” and has often refused to be in the same room as Brandis—even 
7

when visiting one of the children in the hospital or when the children had a school 

concert. We thus agree with the district court’s finding that Brandis “is more likely 

to ensure that the children spend adequate time with [Read] than would be the 

case if [Read] was the primary care parent doling out visitation to [Brandis].”

We also find it significant that Read allowed the children to be tardy eighteen 

and twenty times, respectively, in one school year. The tardiness issue improved 

only after Brandis filed this modification action. Likewise, Read never followed 

through on his obligation under the 2019 decree to divide a retirement account and 

provide Brandis with her share. Despite being ordered during a 2021 mediation to 

do so, Read only completed the transfer a few weeks before this modification trial 

in 2023. Read is similarly not current on his child support and alimony obligations, 

testifying that while he hopes to pay the overdue amounts soon, contributing to his 

retirement account is equally important to him as paying child support. Thus, 

despite Read’s arguments on appeal that he is the superior parent, we agree with 

the district court that “[a] consistent theme” since the decree has been Read’s 

parenting improving only when litigation or court hearings were imminent. So we 

conclude placing the children in Brandis’s physical care and awarding Read 

visitation serves the children’s best interests. 

Turning to Read’s challenge to the amount of visitation, the district court’s 

modified order increases stability by “reducing the number of potential friction 

points between the parents . . . and reducing stress on the child[ren].” Wood, 2016 

WL 4384407, at *2. The prior decree often shuttled the children back and forth 

without any established pick-up times or transportation obligations, which led to 
8

conflict. The modified order, conversely, extends the children’s stays with Brandis 

and provides specific pick-up times and transportation obligations. 

Read’s visitation includes Wednesday nights and every other Friday 

through Sunday. See In re Marriage of Ertmann, 376 N.W.2d 918, 922 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 1985) (“Visitation should include not only weekend time, but time during the 

week when not disruptive to allow the noncustodial parent the chance to become 

involved in the child’s day-to-day activity as well as weekend fun.”). Given Read’s 

testimony at trial that the children were “confused” by constant transportation and 

would benefit from more extended stays with a parent, we find this visitation 

appropriate. Again, we are guided by the children’s interests, which are best 

served by more consistent stays with Brandis. See Hanson, 733 N.W.2d at 695. 

We emphasize that the district court’s order did not modify the original 

decree’s provision that the parties may adjust this schedule by mutual agreement. 

And we commend Brandis’s past efforts to offer Read the chance to care for the 

children during her assigned parenting time when the need arose. If Read still 

desires additional time with the children, he may choose to respond more favorably 

to those offers in the future. The affirmance of this modification order does not 

change the continued need for both parents to cooperate to support each of their 

relationships with the children and serve the children’s best interests. 

III. Appellate Attorney Fees

Finally, Brandis requests appellate attorney fees. We have discretion 

whether to award appellate attorney fees “to the prevailing party” in a modification 

proceeding. Iowa Code § 598.36; see also In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 

561, 568 (Iowa 1999). To guide our discretion, we consider “the parties’ respective 
9

abilities to pay,” the extent that the party prevailed, and whether the party had to 

defend the trial court’s decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Michael, 839 N.W.2d 

630, 639 (Iowa 2013). Because Brandis is the prevailing party, had to defend the 

trial court’s decision, and has significantly less ability to pay than Read, we award 

Brandis $3000 in appellate attorney fees.

AFFIRMED.