Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1201 Filed November 4, 2026 _______________ Whitney Watters, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Derek John Lane, Respondent-Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, The Honorable Daniel P. Wilson, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Derek John Lane, Ottumwa, self-represented appellant. Cynthia D. Hucks of Box and Box Attorneys at Law, Ottumwa, attorney for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Telleen, S.J. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. 1 TABOR, Chief Judge. “[A]t almost every extracurricular activity, . . . there’s been incidents.” That’s why Whitney Watters was motivated to modify the custody arrangement with Derek Lane, the father of their three children. The district court found Whitney credible in her assertion that “there have been ‘hundreds of times’ Derek has called her names and swears at her during exchanges of the children.” After accepting Whitney’s testimony that reaching medical decisions and coparenting with Derek was “nearly impossible,” the district court granted Whitney sole legal custody and physical care of the three children. Derek appeals, contending that the court “modified custody and child support without required findings.” In our independent review, we find that the record supports the district court’s conclusions.1 We affirm the district court’s ruling. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings Derek and Whitney did not marry but had three children together during their on-again-off-again relationship. Their son Ka.C.L. was born in 2012, and their daughter Kl.C.L. was born in 2014. In 2015, the district court awarded the parents joint legal custody and placed physical care of those two children with Whitney. The order provided Derek visitation and required him to pay $557 per month in child support. 1 These proceedings are in equity, so our review is de novo. Phillips v. Davis- Spurling, 541 N.W.2d 846, 847 (Iowa 1995). Our top concern is the best interests of the children. Id. While they are not binding, we give weight to the district court’s fact- findings, especially on credibility determinations. Hines-Miller v. Teter, 35 N.W.3d 321, 328 (Iowa 2026). 2 The parents reconciled a few years later, and M.G.L. was born in 2018. The parents separated for good in 2019. In November 2023, Derek petitioned to modify child custody, visitation, and child support for the two older children. He alleged there had been a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of custody, including Whitney’s alleged actions “alienating the children from their father.”2 At first, Whitney denied there had been a substantial change in circumstances but later amended her answer and sought sole legal custody. In May 2025, Derek amended his modification petition, still seeking sole legal custody of all three children. Meanwhile, the district court granted Whitney’s motion to appoint a Child and Family Reporter (CFR) who was directed to conduct interviews and make custody recommendations. After completing interviews with both parents and the two older children, the CFR recommended Whitney have sole legal custody. The CFR noted that Derek had “extreme difficulty regulating his emotions in any setting,” including berating medical providers in the presence of the children. The CFR also observed that custody exchanges were “very traumatic” for the children because of Derek’s anger. After a three-day trial, the district court granted Whitney’s request for sole legal custody. The court also addressed three pending contempt actions. Derek had filed two show-cause applications alleging Whitney had violated legal custody provisions in the prior decree. The court dismissed those actions, finding Derek did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Whitney was at fault. Instead, the court found that “Derek’s actions and attitude have 2 On the same day, Derek petitioned to determine the custody of the youngest child. The district court combined the two matters for hearing. 3 made it very difficult for the parties to jointly and successfully parent their children.” Whitney filed her own contempt application, alleging Derek had failed to meet his child support obligations. The record showed that Derek had accrued unpaid child support in the amount of $21,937.10. The court found that Derek had willfully stopped paying child support and sentenced him to ten days in jail. Derek had the option to purge that sentence by making regular child support payments of $1,000 per month. Derek appeals those rulings. II. Analysis A. Change in Custody To change a custodial decree, the petitioning party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions since the decree was issued have so materially and substantially changed that the children’s best interests call for the requested modification. In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983). Derek, who is representing himself on appeal, contends the district court lacked authority to grant Whitney sole legal custody because it did not make “an express finding . . . that a material and substantial change in circumstances occurred after the prior decree.” This contention fails for two reasons. 4 First, Derek cannot take one position at trial and a different position on appeal.3 See State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“[A] party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”). There is no dispute that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances. “Both parties so pled in their respective applications for modification, and each requested the court to make such a finding.” In re Marriage of Von Ahsen, No. 01-0154, 2001 WL 1579643, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2001). Second, because our review is de novo, we need not consider “whether the district court erred in not making an express finding concerning the change-in-circumstances requirement.” In re Marriage of Slife, No. 17-0251, 2017 WL 6523473, at *5 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Lessenger v. Lessenger, 156 N.W.2d 845, 846 (Iowa 1968)). “We do not reverse an equity case upon such complaints as these but draw such conclusions from our review as we deem proper.” Lessenger, 156 N.W.2d at 846. In our de novo review, we conclude that the circumstances here “are sufficiently compelling to justify setting aside joint custody in favor of a sole custody arrangement.” In re Marriage of Winnike, 497 N.W.2d 170, 173 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Tension between the parents was high and affected the well- being of the children. We recognize that our state favors joint custody “because, properly tailored to the parties’ circumstances, joint custodial arrangements will often go a long way toward encouraging both parents to share the rights, 3 At trial, Derek’s counsel asked him: “Has there been a substantial and material change in circumstances since the entry of the order for [Kl.C.L.] and [Ka.C.L.]?” He responded: “Yes, I believe so.” 5 responsibilities, and frequently joyful and meaningful experiences of raising their children.” In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 359 (Iowa 1983). But a parent can overcome that preference by offering clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the children. Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b) (2023). Whitney made that showing. Joint legal custody was neither reasonable nor in the children’s best interests. For example, the parents did not communicate effectively about their children’s needs. And Derek acted to undermine, rather than support, Whitney’s relationship with the children. Finally, as the district court found, there is a clearly established history of domestic abuse by Derek against Whitney. See id. § 598.41(3)(c), (e), (j). B. Contempt Rulings It is difficult to tell if Derek is trying to challenge the court’s finding that he failed to prove that Whitney was in contempt of the prior decree. Derek’s pro se brief states: “The court declined to find contempt yet relied on conduct-based conclusions to modify custody without explaining how those rulings were reconciled.” In our de novo review, we have no trouble reconciling the custody modification with the contempt rulings. No relief is available on this claim. C. Child Support Like custody, we review child support orders de novo. See Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13, 19 (Iowa 2005). Derek claims in his opening brief that the district court set his child support “using asymmetrical income standards and duplicative orders.” It is unclear what he means. And we generally avoid enhancing a party’s advocacy. See Ronnfeldt v. Shelby Cnty. Chris A. Myrtue Mem’l Hosp., 984 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Iowa 2023). 6 In his reply brief, Derek complains that the district court “imputed at least $50,000 in annual income to [him] and used that figure to impose $1,000 per month in support.” He argues that his historical income did not accurately reflect his current earning capacity. But we cannot consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Villa Magana v. State, 908 N.W.2d 255, 260 (Iowa 2018). And even if we could, we find no error in the district court’s child support calculation. D. Appellate Attorney Fees Whitney seeks appellate attorney fees. An award of appellate attorney fees is discretionary. See Markey, 705 N.W.2d at 26. In determining whether to award fees, we consider “the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the party making the request was obligated to defend the trial court’s decision on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted). Because Whitney was forced to defend the district court’s ruling, we think an award of appellate attorney fees is appropriate. Whitney asks us to order Derek to pay $10,000 in her attorney fees and submits an affidavit in support of that request. We find that amount too high given the parties’ relative incomes. But we do find that Derek has the ability to pay $5,000 and order Derek to pay that amount toward Whitney’s appellate attorney fees. AFFIRMED. 7