IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HEATHER ROHM AND MARK ROHM Upon the Petition of HEATHER ROHM, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning MARK ROHM, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-033 / 06-0871
Filed April 11, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HEATHER ROHM
AND MARK ROHM
Upon the Petition of
HEATHER ROHM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
MARK ROHM,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Mitchell Turner,
Judge.
Heather Rohm appeals the physical care portion of the district court’s
dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Daniel Vondra of Cole, Vondra & Thompson, L.L.P., Iowa City, for
appellant.
Mark Rohm, Coralville, pro se.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Heather Rohm appeals the portion of a dissolution decree granting Mark
Rohm physical care of the parties’ two children. We affirm.
Heather and Mark had a volatile relationship that began in 1998 and
ended with a dissolution decree in 2006.
During their relationship and
subsequent marriage, the parties had two children: Hailey, born in 1999, and
Kaitlyn, born in 2003.
The district court awarded Mark physical care of the
children. Heather appeals from this portion of the decree. She contends the
district court: (1) erred in considering certain hearsay evidence, (2) did not
consider her testimony concerning domestic abuse by Mark, (3) applied a
“double-standard” in evaluating the evidence, and (4) failed to consider her ability
to foster the children’s relationship with the other parent. Our review of these
issues is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
I. Admission of Exhibit
During the marriage, Heather agreed to serve as foster parent to a
thirteen-year-old girl. Heather was acquainted with the child’s mother and once
had a romantic relationship with the child’s father. While the child was in her
care, Heather asked the Iowa Department of Human Services for permission to
take her to Reno, Nevada, to meet her paternal grandmother. The Department
denied the request. Heather ignored this directive and went to Reno with the
foster child, the child’s father, and Hailey and Kaitlyn.
At the dissolution trial, the district court admitted into evidence an
application to have Heather held in contempt for taking the foster child to Reno
without the Department’s permission.
After the district court filed its decree,
3
Heather moved for a new trial.
She asserted: (1) Mark used the exhibit to
misrepresent to the court that the Department completed a home study before
placing the foster child in her care, (2) based on this misrepresentation, Mark
suggested that “no evidence of domestic abuse was found by DHS after a
thorough investigation,” and (3) the district court relied on this misrepresentation
in granting Mark temporary physical care of the children.
The district court
rejected this argument.
On appeal, Heather reasserts her challenge to the court’s admission of
this exhibit. She contends that the court “considered an unsworn, unverified
statement from an assistant Muscatine County attorney, which implied that a
‘complete home study’ had been done on the Rohm family.” In her view, “[t]he
district court used the hearsay exhibit in order to bolster its credibility findings
with respect to domestic abuse, so the domestic abuse would not create an
‘artificial presumption’ against Mark Rohm.”
We are not persuaded by this
contention.
First, the exhibit that Heather contends should not have been admitted
makes no mention of a “complete home study.”
Instead, it refers to the
Department’s refusal to allow out-of-state travel and the circumstances following
Heather’s violation of that instruction.
Second, neither the district court’s temporary physical care order nor its
final decree make mention of a “complete home study.” The temporary order
states “the Department of Human Services conducted a full investigation of the
Rohm family to ensure the family was a suitable placement for the minor child in
the juvenile proceedings.” The temporary order also states that, had domestic
4
abuse allegations been raised, “the placement would not have been made.”
These statements are not based on the exhibit Heather now challenges but on a
sworn affidavit filed by an assistant county attorney. That affidavit also makes no
mention of a “complete home study.”
Instead, the affiant states that the
Department conducted “a full investigation of the Rohm family” to ensure the
family was a suitable placement. Similarly, the district court’s final decree states
the Department “fully investigated the Rohm home in the fall of 2004 prior to
agreeing to S.T.’s placement with Heather.”
Finally, a Department employee’s affidavit attached to Heather’s motion
for new trial undermines her contention that the district court considered a
“complete home study.”
The employee attested that no such study was
completed. She continued:
Prior to the placement of this child in the home, several phone calls
were made to Heather Rohm to establish what, if any, involvement
she may wish to have with this child. I had several extensive
conversations with Heather Rohm regarding her home and
marriage. Finances, home environment, and placement needs
were all addressed with Heather and Heather noted no concerns in
any area. This worker also had a brief conversation with Mark
Rohm about this placement. Mark Rohm reported no concerns in
these areas as well.
The affiant also noted that “criminal records and child protective records were
accessed for Mark and Heather Rohm. No concerning records were located.”
This language supports the district court’s statements that the Department
conducted a “full investigation” of Heather’s home.
We conclude the district court did not use the challenged exhibit to
inappropriately denigrate Heather’s credibility or inappropriately enhance Mark’s
credibility.
5
II. Alleged History of Domestic Abuse
Our court has recognized that domestic abuse is a factor to be considered
in a physical care determination. In re Marriage of Daniels, 568 N.W.2d 51, 5455 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Heather maintains the record is replete with evidence
of such abuse. We acknowledge that Heather testified to several instances of
abuse at the hands of Mark.
First, Heather stated she sought and obtained a consensual protective
order.
According to Heather this order was necessary because Mark “was
making threatening phone calls” and “shoved [her] down to the ground.” Heather
conceded that she later had the order dropped.
Second, Heather testified that Mark mentally abused her shortly before
their marriage. She stated she began having second thoughts about marrying
Mark and raised her misgivings with him. According to Heather, Mark responded
by threatening to kill her if she did not go through with the marriage and by
threatening to take Hailey with him.
A third incident occurred in the parties’ home.
Heather testified Mark
“busted open the door and broke the lock” to the bedroom, picked her up and
threw her onto the bed, and punched and choked her. As a result, she broke her
toe. Mark conceded that Heather broke her toe but disputed the balance of the
testimony.
Finally, Heather testified she obtained a protective order against Mark
from a Nevada court. She stated she requested this order because she feared
what Mark would do when she returned to Iowa. At the time the order was
obtained, custody proceedings were pending in Iowa. The Nevada court was not
6
initially apprised of these proceedings. When the court learned of them, the court
vacated other orders but maintained the protective order.
This evidence of domestic abuse, while compelling at first blush, was
substantially disputed by Mark and was found not believable by the district court.
The court stated:
Until these proceedings began, even Heather never alleged that
her broken toe was the result of domestic abuse. At best, Heather
described the incident to her own family members as being
accidental. At worst, Heather described the incident to Mark’s
sister, Lisa, as being one where she was the aggressor and broke
her toe when she attempted to kick Mark and missed. The
allegations which form the basis of the Consent No Contact Order
in October of 2001 (over four years prior to the marriage) are
similarly not credible. Finally, the Court specifically finds that the
No Contact Order which Heather obtained in the state of Nevada
was based upon inaccurate information (at best) provided by
Heather. The Iowa Department of Human Services investigated
the Rohm family in the fall of 2004. Heather mentioned nothing of
Mark’s allegedly abusive nature. Heather will not be allowed to
artificially create a presumption against Mark receiving custody of
the children in this matter on that basis.
We give weight to these credibility findings, as the court had the opportunity to
see the witnesses and assess their demeanor. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g);
In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Iowa 2007); In re Marriage of
Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 423 (Iowa 1984).
We recognize that the district court did not discuss several other incidents
of claimed abuse, including the threat to kill Heather shortly before their
marraige, an incident during which Mark admitted to biting Heather’s finger, and
an incident, cited by Heather’s mother, during which Mark slapped Heather.
However, we are still left with the district court’s finding that Heather raised the
domestic abuse evidence to gain an advantage in the custody dispute. In light of
7
this finding, we conclude that the domestic abuse factor does not require
modification of the district court’s decision to award Mark physical care of the
children.
III. Double-Standard
Heather contends the district court used a double-standard in evaluating
the evidence, particularly as it related to the parties’ romantic relationships. She
suggests the court minimized Mark’s relationships with other women but
magnified her relationship with the foster child’s father. To the contrary, the
district court specifically found that “both parties acted badly and in an immature
fashion during substantial portions of the parties’ marriage.” We concur in this
assessment.
IV. Ability to Foster Relationship
One of the statutory factors to consider in determining which parent should
exercise physical care is who will better support the other parent’s relationship
with the child. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (2005); In re Marriage of Wedemeyer,
475 N.W.2d 657, 659 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). Heather contends she demonstrated
a superior ability to foster this type of relationship. The district court disagreed,
for the following reasons:
[T]he Court specifically finds that while both parties testified that
they would encourage the children’s relationship with the other
party if they were granted primary physical care, the Court does not
believe that Heather has, in the past, nor would she in the future
encourage Mark’s relationship with the girls if she were accorded
primary physical care. Mark has demonstrated that he is more
likely to encourage the children to have a healthy relationship with
their mother and her extended family. Additionally, Heather’s
complete disregard of court orders and/or manipulations of the
various court systems to try to achieve her ends is very troubling
and casts significant doubt on her overall credibility.
8
The record supports this assessment. Mark stated he was given no advance
notice of Heather’s trip to Reno. When he learned that his daughters had been
removed from the State, he attempted to reach Heather, but was only given the
number of her foster child’s father. Mark ultimately traveled to Reno to recover
the children.
Heather’s decision to leave the State with, at best, minimal notice to Mark
speaks poorly of her ability to advance the children’s relationship with their father.
In contrast, after Mark returned to Iowa with the children, he immediately
arranged for a meeting with their maternal grandparents. It is true that he later
refused to list Heather as a contact on Hailey’s student enrollment card.
However, this incident was overshadowed by his decision to afford Heather
regular visits with the children, even during periods of estrangement.
This decision inured to the benefit of the children. Despite the tensions
between the parents, Mark testified: “My kids are so stable now, it’s unreal.” We
conclude the district court acted equitably in granting Mark physical care of the
children.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
