## Facts

- Jason Rickels (father) and Tonia Rickels (mother) divorced and had two children.
- In the dissolution decree, the court awarded the parents joint legal custody.
- The decree placed physical care with Tonia because, at that time, her work schedule better matched the children’s day-to-day needs than Jason’s schedule.
- About ten years later, Tonia married Anthony Moeller.
- Tonia did not know when she married Moeller that he had sexually abused his own children and was subject to a court order requiring supervision if he visited them.
- During the post-decree period, Tonia worked night shifts, while Jason no longer worked outside the home and claimed he could provide full-time, around-the-clock care.
- After learning of Moeller’s abusive past, Tonia began divorce proceedings against him, but evidence showed Moeller continued to see Tonia and the children.
- Jason filed a petition to modify the decree, asking the court to transfer physical care to him based on (1) the change in the parties’ schedules and (2) the risk presented by Moeller’s continued presence.
- The district court denied Jason’s request to change physical care but modified the decree to prohibit either parent from allowing Moeller unsupervised or overnight access to the children.
- Jason appealed the denial of his request to transfer physical care.

## Issues

1. Did Jason prove a substantial, material, and relatively permanent change in circumstances since the decree, not within the parties’ contemplation, affecting the children’s welfare, that justified changing physical care?
2. Given Moeller’s history of sexual abuse and continued contact with the children, was transferring physical care to Jason required, or could the court address safety concerns through narrower restrictions?
3. Did Jason prove he could provide superior care such that changing physical care would better serve the children’s long-range welfare than leaving the existing placement in place with added conditions?

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Jason’s petition to modify physical care.
- Physical care remained with Tonia.
- The decree modification restricting Moeller’s contact with the children—no unsupervised or overnight access—remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to change an established physical-care arrangement bears a heavy burden; courts are reluctant to disturb an existing placement absent strong reasons.
- Modification requires proof of a substantial and material change in circumstances that (1) occurred after the decree, (2) is more or less permanent, (3) was not contemplated when the decree was entered, and (4) bears on the children’s welfare.
- Even if changed circumstances are shown, the moving party must also prove superior ability to care for the children and that a change in physical care would better serve the children’s long-term welfare than maintaining the current arrangement.
- Courts may address identified safety risks through specific, enforceable custodial conditions (such as third-party contact restrictions) when those conditions reasonably protect the children without the disruption of transferring physical care.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of Jason Rickels’s request to transfer physical care because he did not meet Iowa’s demanding modification standard; although Moeller’s abuse history and continued contact raised serious safety concerns, the district court could protect the children through a targeted order barring Moeller from unsupervised or overnight contact rather than changing physical care.


In re Marriage of Rickels, 2013 WL 3458173 (2013)