Tyler M. Gould v. Wendy L. Alderin ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0874
Filed November 17, 2022
TYLER M. GOULD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WENDY L. ALDERIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve, Judge.
A mother appeals the district court decision sending the parties’ child to
school in the father’s school district. AFFIRMED.
Ryan M. Beckenbaugh of Beckenbaugh Law P.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Robert S. Gallagher of Gallagher, Millage & Gallagher, P.L.C., Bettendorf,
for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
This appeal concerns the narrow issue of where the parties’ minor child,
E.G., should attend school. Wendy Alderin wishes for the child to attend school in
Illinois where she resides. The district court determined that E.G. should attend
school in Iowa where his father, Tyler Gould, resides. Upon our de novo review,
we affirm that E.G. should be enrolled in the Davenport Community School District.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
E.G., born in 2017, is the only child shared by Wendy and Tyler. The parties
were living together in Blue Grass, Iowa, at the time of his birth but separated in
approximately 2019. At that time, Tyler moved to nearby Walcott, Iowa. Tyler filed
a petition to establish custody and visitation, but the parties were able to cooperate
and arrive at a stipulation to maintain joint legal custody and joint physical care on
a week on/week off basis, which the court approved in March 2020.
Between March and June of 2020, Wendy moved into a home owned by
her fiancé in Taylor Ridge, Illinois. Wendy works as a paramedic and is able to
arrange her schedule to work on alternate weeks when she does not have E.G.
Wendy has three older children, ages nine, thirteen, and fourteen. She has
physical care of the two oldest children and joint care of the nine-year-old child,
whose schedule syncs with that of E.G. Under Wendy’s stipulation with the father
of her nine-year-old child, she cannot leave the Rockridge School District (based
in Taylor Ridge, Illinois).
3
In January 2021, Tyler moved to Buffalo, Iowa, where he now resides with
his girlfriend.1 They own their home as joint tenants and have a one-year-old
daughter. He is employed full-time as an auto mechanic in Davenport.
In May, Tyler filed a petition requesting the court to determine where E.G.
should attend school. During the pendency of this action, E.G. began four-year-
old preschool at a private school in Illinois. Tyler and Wendy had each enrolled
him in different schools, but Tyler explained that he had to “bite the bullet” and
consent to attendance in Illinois to avoid E.G. missing out on preschool. Wendy
accepted responsibility for the cost of the preschool.
In March 2022, the district court held a hearing on the matter and
subsequently ordered E.G. to be enrolled in the Davenport Community School
District beginning in the fall of 2022. Wendy filed a timely appeal.
II. Review.
As this appeal concerns modification of a child custody action and was
heard in equity, our review is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; Christy v. Lenz,
878 N.W.2d 461, 464 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). We give weight to the district court’s
factual findings and credibility determinations, though we are not bound by them.
Christy, 878 N.W.2d at 464. “Prior cases have little precedential value, except to
provide a framework for analysis, and we must base our decision on the particular
facts and circumstances before us.” In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397
(Iowa 1992).
1Buffalo and Taylor Ridge are both located near the Quad Cities, approximately
seventeen miles apart.
4
III. Discussion.
As joint legal custodians, each parent is entitled to “equal participation” in
decisions affecting the child’s education. Iowa Code § 598.1(3) (2021). Because
the parties have been able to effectively co-parent with the exception of the specific
question now before us, neither parent requests a change to their custody or
physical-care arrangement. However, Wendy requests that Tyler be ordered
responsible for all transportation to and from school if we are to affirm the district
court’s decision to place E.G. in school in Iowa.
In rendering our decision, we seek a resolution that serves the best interest
of the child:
Our supreme court has explained that ‘[w]hen joint legal custodians
have a genuine disagreement concerning a course of treatment
affecting a child’s medical care, the court must step in as an objective
arbiter, and decide the dispute by considering what is in the best
interest of the child.’ That reasoning applies equally to decisions
concerning a child’s education.
In re Marriage of Laird, No. 11-1434, 2012 WL 1449625, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr.
25, 2012) (internal citation omitted). “‘Best interest of the child’ includes but is not
limited to the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact
possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to
the child may result from this contact.” Iowa Code § 598.1(1).
Wendy argues the logistics of getting E.G. to and from a different school
than her older children support him attending school in Illinois. Tyler testified that
he has significant flexibility in his work schedule and is able to transport E.G. to
school in either district. We have previously prioritized logistics in selecting a
child’s school to minimize the amount of time the child must spend traveling to and
5
from school. See Laird, 2012 WL 1449625, at *3; Gaswint v. Robinson, No. 12–
2149, 2013 WL 4504879, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013). However, Wendy’s
argument pertains to a schedule that will work best for her and not how long E.G.
will spend traveling. In either school district, E.G. will have a longer trip to and
from school every other week, and both parents will have at least one half-sibling
with whom to coordinate transportation. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by the
logistics issue.
Both parents presented evidence regarding the quality of education offered
by the two school districts. While the Illinois schools ranked slightly better in some
categories, we agree with the district court’s finding that they are relatively
comparable and both good schools. Tyler argued there are better opportunities to
pursue college credit during high school in Davenport, but Wendy pointed out there
is some availability for such credit with Rockridge, and the curriculum may change
by the time E.G. reaches high school. Given the age of E.G.’s half-siblings, there
will be minimal building overlap with his next closest half-sibling in either school
district. Tyler emphasized that E.G. also has friends from tee-ball and cousins
from Wendy’s side in the Davenport schools. Wendy pointed out that E.G. made
friends while attending preschool in Illinois. We encourage both parents to
continue to foster E.G.’s social development with family and friends from their
respective communities and extracurricular activities.
The district court cited “a slight advantage in continuity and stability” for E.G.
to attend school in the Davenport district. While both school districts present
strong opportunities to serve E.G.’s best interest, we affirm the court’s decision
that E.G. should be enrolled in the Davenport Community School District. Because
6
it would be inequitable to completely absolve Wendy of her responsibility to
transport E.G. to and from school, we decline her request to order Tyler to provide
all transportation.
AFFIRMED.