IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KEVIN ANDREA REEDER AND TAMI LEIGH REEDER Upon the Petition of KEVIN ANDREA REEDER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning TAMI LEIGH REEDER, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-438 / 08-1404
Filed July 2, 2009
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KEVIN ANDREA REEDER AND TAMI LEIGH
REEDER
Upon the Petition of
KEVIN ANDREA REEDER,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
TAMI LEIGH REEDER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, James M. Drew,
Judge.
Tami Leigh Reeder appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to
Kevin Andrea Reeder. AFFIRMED.
Roger L. Sutton of Sutton Law Office, Charles City, for appellant.
David H. Skilton of Cronin, Skilton & Skilton, Nashua, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Tami Leigh Reeder appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to
Kevin Andrea Reeder. She contends that she, not Kevin, should have received
primary physical care of the parties’ twins who were born in June of 2002. We
affirm.
SCOPE OF REVIEW. We review de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re
Marriage of Riggert, 537 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995); In re Marriage of
Harris, 499 N.W.2d 329, 330 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). We give weight to the factfindings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). We are not bound by these determinations. Id. We
base our decision primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties before
us. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983). We approach
this issue from a gender-neutral position avoiding sexual stereotypes.
In re
Marriage of Pratt, 489 N.W.2d 56, 58 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); see also In re
Marriage of Bethke, 484 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).
BACKGROUND. The parties were married in March of 2001. At the time
of their marriage both were in the United States Army. Kevin was discharged
from the army about a month later. Tami continues to serve her country gallantly
and has progressed in rank since the time of the marriage. Since the children
were born Kevin has provided the substantially greater share of their care as
Tami has been required to be away from the family for extended periods. Tami
has provided the greater share of the family support as she has been the primary
and at times only wage earner.
3
In August of 2006 Tami went to Iraq and Kevin moved with the children to
Iowa. Tami returned from Iraq in December of 2007. Kevin filed this action. A
temporary custody hearing was held in March of 2008 and physical care of the
children was to remain with Kevin pending trial.
The case came on for trial in July of 2008. The district found that Kevin
had been the primary caretaker of the children since their birth and Tami was the
breadwinner. The court recognized that Tami’s responsibilities with her job have
made it impossible for her to care for the children as Kevin has, noting Tami is
required to work regular shifts and is gone for extended periods performing
duties in other countries.
The court also found the children thriving in their
current environment. The court noted that the children’s school teachers had
only positive things to say about the children and Kevin, friends and neighbors
consider the children happy and well-adjusted, and there is no contradictory
evidence. We have reviewed this evidence and agree with the district court’s
conclusions.
The court reasoned Kevin’s historical role as the primary caretaker and
the children’s thriving in his care is more than sufficient to justify placing the
children with him. The court also recognized certain concerns and complaints
Tami has about Kevin. The court noted she had concerns about Kevin’s drinking
and temper, but the court found the evidence did not support either accusation.
The court found Tami an impressive person and recognized that she loves her
children and would do an excellent job of caring for them, but that the facts of the
case and the legal principles line up in Kevin’s favor.
4
The court gave Tami liberal visitation time and ordered that she pay child
support of $997 a month, maintain health insurance for the children, and pay the
required share of medical expenses not covered by insurance.
PHYSICAL CARE. Clearly Kevin has been the primary care parent. 1 He
has had sole custody of them for extended periods of time when Tami was
absent from the state or country where he lived with the children. Kevin cared for
the children while the couple lived together and Tami worked outside the home
and he did not. The children have a good relationship with him. The testimony
of the twins’ kindergarten teachers indicated that the children are doing well,
Kevin is interested in their school work, and he has appeared for school
conferences. Testimony of a neighbor and of a friend of the family opined that
Kevin is a good parent and has a good relationship with the children.
The fact that a parent was the primary caretaker of the child prior to
separation does not assure an award of physical care. In re Marriage of Toedter,
473 N.W.2d 233, 234 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). However, consideration is given in
any custody dispute to allowing the child to remain with a parent who has been
the primary caretaker. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa
2007) (noting “stability and continuity of care giving are important factors that
must be considered in custody and care decisions”).
“[T]he successful care
giving by one spouse in the past is a strong predictor that future care of the
children will be of the same quality.” Id. at 697. The court in Hansen awarded
the mother physical care after considering several facts including her role as
1
In cases where the parents live together and both work outside the home, determining
a primary care parent is not as clear cut as it is here.
5
primary caretaker.
Id. at 701.
The court also indicated this concept
encompasses an “approximation rule.” Id. at 697. This rule provides that the
care giving of parents in the post-divorce world should be in rough proportion to
that which predated the dissolution. Id. at 697-98.
We affirm the district court’s well-reasoned decision to award physical
care to Kevin. This will allow the children to remain with the parent who has
been their primary care provider since birth.
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. Both parties request appellate attorney
fees. Tami was unsuccessful in this appeal and has a greater ability to pay fees
than does Kevin. We order that she pay $1500 of Kevin’s attorney fees and the
costs of this appeal.
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.
