In re the Marriage of Bonham

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1208
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

In re the Marriage of Kendra Samia Bonham and Colt Robert Bonham
Upon the Petition of
Kendra Samia Bonham,
Petitioner–Appellant,

And Concerning
Colt Robert Bonham,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County,
The Honorable Joel D. Yates, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Andrew B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., West
Des Moines, attorney for appellant.

Jason S. Rieper of Rieper Law, P.C., Des Moines, attorney for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

Kendra Bonham appeals from a divorce decree placing physical care of
a child with her ex-husband Colt Bonham. She argues the district court
should have awarded her physical care instead. Among other claims, Kendra
argues the court gave improper weight to each parent’s handling of the
child’s alleged food allergy. Considering the record before us and the district
court’s credibility findings, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Kendra and Colt married and had one child together in 2022. Before
the child was born, the couple decided to move from Kansas City to
Centerville to be close to Kendra’s family. And they bought a house together
in town. The record includes disputed evidence that Kendra could be
combative while the couple lived together. The couple separated in late 2023,
and Colt moved back to the Kansas City area, where he continues to reside.
For the first three months after the separation, the parents alternated who the
child stayed with every other weekend.

In March 2024, Kendra filed for divorce, asking for joint legal custody
and for physical care to be placed with her. Colt requested shared physical
care, or alternatively, that the child be placed in his physical care. The parties
agreed to a temporary order establishing joint legal custody and shared
physical care with alternating weeks until trial. During the fourteen months
the temporary order was in place, the parties were mostly amicable; they
dispute whether communications between them worsened.

Kendra continues to live in the Centerville house. She works regular
hours for a fiber optic company in a nearby town. She has friends and family

2
members in the local area. And she has employed the same daycare provider
since her maternity leave.

Colt lives with his girlfriend in an apartment in Lee’s Summit,
Missouri, which he has rented since August 2024. Colt is an elevator
mechanic, which occasionally requires him to work extended hours. He has
friends and family members throughout the Kansas City metro. And he
employs a local daycare provider.

Between August and September 2024, Colt grew concerned the child
was vomiting and developing rashes, and he started tracking the symptoms
in a calendar. In October, he took the child to a pediatrician who, according
to Colt, said that the child’s diet may be causing the symptoms. Colt
implemented an elimination diet and eventually identified what he believed
was the culprit food allergen. Colt told Kendra, who was skeptical; she
believed the child’s symptoms weren’t related to a food allergy at all but
instead caused by run-of-the-mill diaper rashes and a bacterial infection that
she claimed Colt’s pediatrician diagnosed. Tension between the parties grew
because Kendra did not restrict the child’s access to the suspect allergen. For
her part, Kendra and her daycare provider denied seeing any adverse
reactions from its consumption. The child has not been formally diagnosed
with a food allergy, and no allergy tests were admitted into evidence at trial.

The district court was “convinced that both parents are capable
parents, and each will do well in the future to protect the best interests of
their [child].” And the court found both parents “enjoy an abundance of
family and support systems where they currently reside.” The court also
noted that Colt, more than Kendra, focused his testimony on how he would
foster the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent. As to the food
allergen, the court found Colt took “proper steps to address the situation”

3
and “wishe[d] Kendra would have taken more proactive steps to learn more
about the situation and been more assertive to address the potential
concern.” And the court found Colt more credible than Kendra overall.
Making what it described as a difficult choice between two good parents, the
district court placed physical care of the child with Colt. Kendra appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Actions involving the dissolution of marriage are in equity, and our
review is de novo. In re Marriage of Miller, 966 N.W.2d 630, 635 (Iowa 2021).
“[W]e examine the entire record and adjudicate anew” the issues presented.
In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013). “We give
weight to the findings of the district court, particularly concerning the
credibility of witnesses; however, those findings are not binding upon us.” Id.

DISCUSSION
As the basis for why she believes the child should have been placed in
her physical care, Kendra claims the district court misweighed evidence
concerning stability and continuity of the child’s care, that the record does
not reflect she submitted less evidence than Colt about supporting the other
parent’s relationship with the child, and that the court improperly weighed
the food-allergen evidence. We take each in turn.

“The objective of a physical care determination is to place the child[]
in the environment most likely to bring them to health, both physically and
mentally, and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683,
695 (Iowa 2007). Iowa Code section 598.41 (2025) sets forth a series of
nonexclusive factors that are relevant in physical care determinations.
See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696. And our case law sets forth similar additional
factors. See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

4
Our overriding consideration “is the best interests of the child.” Iowa R.
App. P. 6.904(3)(n).

Kendra first urges that her familial support network, the child’s
daycare in Centerville, and her house in Centerville are “the only home” the
child has known, which means stability and continuity of placement favor
placing physical care with her. But the child is four years old and spent the
fourteen months before trial alternating between the parents’ homes every
week. We think this factor is largely inconclusive given that history. And
while stability is important, “our case law places greater importance on the
stability of the relationship between the child and the primary caregiver over
the physical setting of the child.” In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759,
762 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). On this point, the district court found both parties
capable parents with robust social support, and we tend to agree on our de
novo review.

As for Kendra’s second claim, that the record does not support that
Colt offered more evidence of intent to maintain the child’s relationship with
her than vice versa, we have scrutinized the record and find the district
court’s finding supported by the transcript. To the extent Kendra testified on
the subject, it was only after Colt expressed concern about her silence on the
issue. This was a proper consideration, and the weight this factor deserved
was informed by the district court’s credibility assessment, which we are
loath to second-guess.

Last among her challenges, Kendra asserts the court gave improper
weight to her conduct relating to the child’s possible food allergy. She urges
that the allergy has not been formally diagnosed, the medical evidence in the
record was somewhat thin, and witness testimony proved at most correlation
rather than causation. While these are all legitimate arguments to make to a

5
factfinder regarding what weight to afford this issue, Kendra had that
opportunity at trial and the district court found her arguments unpersuasive
and her testimony not credible. Although we may have afforded this factor
less weight than the district court did, this difference of opinion is no basis
for relief on appeal. And we agree with the district court’s broader
observation regarding the positives of Colt’s parenting, his support of
Kendra’s relationship with the child, and his conflict-resolution style, all of
which are proper considerations that support placing physical care of the
child with him. See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695.

Both parties request appellate attorney fees. “An award of attorney
fees on appeal is not a matter of right, but rests within [the court’s]
discretion.” In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2007). In making this determination, we consider the financial needs of
the requesting party, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the
requesting party had to defend the trial court’s decision on appeal.
McDermott, 827 N.W.2d at 687. While Kendra makes notably less than Colt,
she did not prevail on any of her arguments and was not required to defend
the district court’s decision. Considering all of this, we decline to award
either party appellate attorney fees.

AFFIRMED.

6