## Facts

- Linda Lou Tresnak (mother) and Emil James “Jim” Tresnak (father) married in 1965 and had two sons, ages 11 and 9 at dissolution.
- Jim worked while completing college and later a master’s degree; by the late 1970s he taught high school business in Chariton, Iowa.
- Linda primarily cared for the children, later completed a B.A. in psychology in 1979, and planned to begin law school at the University of Iowa.
- During periods when each parent pursued education, the children at times lived with Jim in Chariton and at other times with Linda in Kirksville, Missouri.
- Both parents sought custody in the dissolution proceeding; the record showed each was a loving and involved caregiver.
- The trial court awarded custody to Jim, emphasizing Linda’s intent to attend law school.
- The judge stated he took judicial notice that law school requires daily classes and extensive evening and weekend study, which he viewed as inconsistent with full-time parenting.
- Linda moved for a new trial, arguing the judicial notice was improper and the custody analysis relied on gender-role assumptions; the motion was denied, with the judge citing his personal familiarity with law school.
- Linda appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly took judicial notice of the asserted time demands of law school and relied on that “fact” to decide custody.
2. Whether the custody decision complied with an evidence-based best-interests analysis and Iowa’s gender-neutral custody principles, rather than resting on stereotypes about a mother’s role and professional schooling.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the custody award and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court improperly used judicial notice to treat disputed, variable matters about law school time commitments as indisputable facts.
- The court held the custody analysis was distorted by reliance on assumptions about Linda’s schooling and gender-based expectations, instead of record evidence tied to the children’s best interests.
- On remand, custody was to be reconsidered under a proper evidentiary best-interests inquiry without reliance on improper judicial notice or gendered assumptions.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial notice is limited to matters of common knowledge or capable of certain verification; it cannot be based on a judge’s personal experience or private knowledge.
- Contested, individualized questions—such as the time demands of professional schooling and whether a particular parent can meet childcare responsibilities while enrolled—generally require proof in the record, not judicial notice.
- Child-custody determinations must be grounded in the child’s best interests, evaluated from record evidence rather than generalized beliefs about occupations or educational programs.
- Custody decisions must be gender-neutral; neither mothers nor fathers receive a preference, and stereotypes about parental roles cannot substitute for an individualized best-interests determination.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the custody award rested on improper judicial notice and stereotype-driven assumptions about a mother attending law school, requiring a new custody determination based on admissible evidence and gender-neutral best-interests factors.


In re Marriage of Tresnak, 297 N.W.2d 109 (Iowa 1980)