Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-2045 Filed September 2, 2026 _______________ In re the Marriage of Timothy C. Hopwood, Jr. and Veronica R. Hoffman Upon the Petition of Timothy C. Hopwood, Jr., Petitioner–Appellee, And Concerning Veronica R. Hoffman, Respondent–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, The Honorable Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West Des Moines, attorney for appellant. Donna R. Miller of Miller & Evans PLC, Des Moines, attorney for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. 1 SANDY, Judge. Veronica Hoffman appeals the physical-care provision of the decree dissolving her marriage to Timothy Hopwood. The district court granted Tim physical care of the parties’ minor children, but Veronica requests this court reverse course and grant her physical care. Alternatively, Veronica asks for an expanded visitation schedule. After reviewing the record, we affirm the district court’s physical-care determination and decline to expand Veronica’s visitation. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Tim and Veronica were married in Illinois in October 2018. Before the end of their marriage, Veronica and Tim lived together in Manson, Iowa. During their marriage they had two children, one born in 2014 and the other in 2022. Veronica acted as the primary caregiver while the children were young—she stayed home with the children when they were born—and Tim worked as an officer for the Fort Dodge Police Department. The parties’ relationship deteriorated during summer 2023, when Veronica took the children to visit family in Illinois with no intention of returning to Manson. While it was not uncommon for Veronica to take the children to Illinois for a few weeks during the summer, Veronica did not talk about separating or tell Tim about her plans to keep the children when she left for Illinois. Tim became aware of Veronica’s plan when he received an address change notification in the mail and when he discovered through the children’s Iowa school that Veronica had enrolled their eldest in a Catholic school in Illinois. After those revelations, the two spoke and decided to proceed with divorce. In its order on temporary matters, the district court ordered the 2 parties share joint legal custody but granted Tim physical care subject to visitation by Veronica. Veronica’s visitation included the children’s school breaks, and she had the option to travel to Iowa for “up to one weekend per month for 48-hour periods of visitation with the children.” However, the court provided that “if during the pendency of this matter Veronica resides in the oldest child’s school district in Iowa, then the temporary physical care will automatically revert to joint physical care.” In making its physical-care determination, the court stated: “It is of great significance to the court, on the limited record available, that Veronica essentially moved the children to Illinois, and enrolled the oldest in school there, with no advance notice to Timothy or discussion of the issue.” The parties worked under this arrangement for the next two years, during which Veronica remained in Illinois. For the first year, Veronica regularly exercised her weekend visitation rights. She would return for a weekend and stay in the marital home with the children while Tim worked. But Veronica’s weekend visits wavered during the second year, and the children went months without seeing their mother. Veronica explained she stopped returning for her monthly visit when she became aware that Tim’s new girlfriend and children were moving into the home. After learning about Tim’s new living arrangement, Veronica was no longer comfortable staying at the marital home; budgetary concerns prevented her from renting a hotel room every month. This was difficult for the children. The case came to trial on August 5, 2025. While he admitted that he was not a perfect parent, Tim testified about doing his best to support and care for the children. Additionally, Tim testified that Veronica was a good mom, and he was supportive of the children’s relationship with their mother. 3 Veronica’s case focused more on what she perceived as shortcomings in Tim’s parenting. She raises these same concerns on appeal. Specifically, she criticizes Tim’s decision to move in with his girlfriend after dating for only a few months, his communication, his housekeeping, and his occasional issues with getting the children to school on time. Veronica’s criticisms failed to sway the district court—which granted Tim physical care. The district court granted Veronica “reasonable and liberal rights of visitation with the parties’ minor children,” and set forth a visitation schedule in case the parties could not agree on one. The court’s schedule set Veronica’s visitation to occur during the children’s breaks from school. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because dissolution actions lie in equity, our review is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Miller, 966 N.W.2d 630, 635 (Iowa 2021). “But when we say a case is reviewed de novo, this does not mean that we decide the case in a vacuum or approach it as though the trial court had never been involved.” Hora v. Hora, 5 N.W.3d 635, 645 (Iowa 2024) (cleaned up). Instead, “while not bound by the district court’s findings, we give them weight and defer especially where the credibility of witnesses is a factor in the outcome.” Id. (cleaned up). The court’s ruling will be disturbed “only when there has been a failure to do equity.” In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION I. Consideration of Events after Trial As a preliminary issue, Veronica asks us to consider the events of the contempt proceeding, which occurred after trial in our review. Tim objects 4 to altering the decree based on events that occurred after trial, arguing it goes against Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.801 and is better suited for a modification action. We agree with Tim that the contempt proceedings following the close of evidence are inappropriate considerations for appeal since they were not before the district court when it made its ruling regarding physical care. See In re Marriage of Rodasky, No. 16-1312, 2016 WL 7077920, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016) (“[W]e may only consider the evidence that was before the district court in the dissolution proceeding prior to [husband’s] appeal.”). II. Physical Care Veronica requests we reverse the district court’s grant of physical care to Tim, arguing that “Veronica can more effectively administer to the children’s long range best interests, and it is in their best interests for Veronica to be granted . . . physical care subject to Timothy’s visitation schedule.” For support, Veronica primarily relies on her historic role as the children’s caregiver and her criticisms of Tim’s parenting choices. When reviewing physical-care determinations, our primary consideration is the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of Humphrey, 33 N.W.3d 627, 637 (Iowa Ct. App. 2026). “Physical care issues are not to be resolved based upon perceived fairness to the spouses, but primarily upon what is best for the child.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). While Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2023) sets forth the factors courts must consider in determining the appropriate custody arrangement, our goal “is to place the children in the environment most likely to bring them to health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” Id.; Iowa Code § 598.41(3). 5 We agree with Veronica and the district court that it is difficult to determine which parent is in the better position to promote the children’s best interests. However, we also agree with the district court that Veronica’s criticisms of Tim’s parenting and life choices are “overblown.” Veronica’s “criticism rings hollow in comparison to [her] secretive departure to Illinois and lack of communication in the summer of 2023.” Ultimately, the concerns Veronica raises fall short of proving any inequity in the district court’s ruling or that it was not in the children’s best interest to place primary physical care with Tim. Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695; McDermott, 827 N.W.2d at 676. In addition, we note that any favor the rule of approximation would have afforded Veronica is counterbalanced by the children residing primarily with their father for the two years preceding trial. See Watson v. Ollendieck, No. 22-1350, 2023 WL 3335602, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 10, 2023) (stating the approximation factor “loses significance ‘where the historically less- involved parent has proven to be a capable caregiver’” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s physical-care determination. III. Visitation Alternatively, Veronica asks that we expand her visitation schedule. The district court granted Veronica “reasonable and liberal rights of visitation with the parties’ minor children,” and set forth a visitation schedule in case the parties could not agree on one. The court’s schedule set Veronica’s visitation to occur during the children’s summer break, spring break, and half of their Christmas break. While she criticizes the district court for not providing her regular monthly visits with the children, she never affirmatively states how her visitation should be increased and fails to propose a new schedule. We award visitation rights “which will assure the child the opportunity for the 6 maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents,” but such visitation rights are difficult to afford in cases like this where parents are separated by great geographical distances. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). We affirm the visitation schedule in the decree but emphasize that these are only guidelines, the parents can certainly agree to expand time beyond what is ordered. IV. Appellate Attorney Fees Finally, Tim requests an award of appellate attorney fees. Whether to award appellate attorney fees is left to the court’s discretion. McDermott, 827 N.W.2d at 687. “In determining whether to award appellate attorney fees, we consider the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and the relative merits of the appeal.” Id. (cleaned up). After considering each of those factors, we decline to award Tim appellate attorney fees. AFFIRMED. 7