Michael J. Davis v. Danielle M. Ladenthin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1437
Filed July 2, 2025

MICHAEL J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DANIELLE M. LADENTHIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County,

Robert D. Tiefenthaler, Judge.

A mother appeals a custody decree placing the parties’ child in the father’s

physical care. AFFIRMED.

John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant.

Jenny L. Cleveringa of Klass Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux Center, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

Michael Davis and Danielle Ladenthin, who were never married to one

another, share one child together—a daughter, born in 2013. Michael petitioned

for custody, visitation, and child support in early 2022, when Danielle refused to let

him see their child after a dispute about exchanging the child on Christmas. In

determining which parent should have physical care of the child, the district court

weighed Michael’s distant criminal history—which included a felony domestic

abuse assault on Danielle—against Danielle’s recent series of unhealthy

relationships, denials of visitation, and the effect of both on the child. After doing

so, the court concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to be placed in the

parties’ joint legal custody and Michael’s physical care. Danielle appeals the

physical-care determination.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Michael and Danielle met in 2012. They moved in together the next year

when Danielle became pregnant. Their daughter was born in 2013, and the family

lived together until 2016 when the couple broke up.

Michael did not handle the end of the relationship well. In March 2016, he

broke into Danielle’s home in the middle of the night and assaulted her. Michael

was arrested and charged with domestic abuse assault by strangulation causing

bodily injury. He pled guilty to that charge as a habitual offender and was

sentenced to a suspended indeterminate term of fifteen years in prison, with a

three-year mandatory minimum. A criminal no-contact order was entered for five

years.
3

Ten days after his sentencing in September, Michael violated the no-contact

order. He was also charged with his sixth operating-while-intoxicated offense.

Michael violated the no-contact order again in February 2017 and picked up

another charge for operating while intoxicated. The district court revoked Michael’s

probation in June and ordered him to serve the previously imposed prison

sentence. Before Michael went to prison, Danielle asked the court to terminate the

no-contact order so that he could have visits with their daughter while he was

incarcerated. The court granted Danielle’s request, and Michael saw the child

nearly every weekend during his incarceration.

In October 2018, Michael was released on parole and almost immediately

began having visits with the child every weekend. He also found full-time

employment, secured stable housing, and maintained his sobriety. In 2020,

Michael married a woman named Mandy, who he had been dating since before he

went to prison. In addition to his full-time employment at a hotel, Michael also

helps Mandy run a daycare business. Michael discharged his probation in August

2022 and has had no arrests or criminal convictions since he went to prison. As

Michael’s life stabilized, Danielle’s grew more chaotic, and Michael became

concerned about her relationships, drug use, and care of their daughter.

After separating from Michael, Danielle was in “seven or more” relationships

with men who had “all been incarcerated or in federal prison.” One of those men

sent Michael text messages repeatedly calling the child “retarded,” among other

offensive names. Another boyfriend, whose street name was “Yako,” posted a

video of himself in Danielle’s apartment rolling a blunt, smoking marijuana, and

talking about shooting people. He also posted a picture of himself holding a semi-
4

automatic firearm (even though he is a felon). A week after that picture was taken,

he was charged with felony weapons distribution. In January 2021, Danielle’s

sister called the police because she was worried that Yako was assaulting

Danielle. When officers arrived at Danielle’s apartment, Yako answered the door

to the apartment. Danielle was standing behind him mouthing, “help me.” But

Danielle told the officers that she did not want Yako to be arrested because he was

out on bond that she had posted. Police also investigated reports from neighbors

about “a strong odor of marijuana” coming from Danielle’s apartment. And Michael

and Mandy reported that they smelled marijuana on the child after picking her up

from Danielle.

The child told Michael that she is “scared when the different boyfriends are

over.” She also said that Danielle and her friends would sometimes ask her to go

to her room while they smoked marijuana. And the child told Michael about a time

when she had to wait for Danielle at the bus stop for over an hour when it was

below freezing outside. The child peed her pants while she was waiting and said

that Danielle “screamed at her,” which, according to Michael, is how Danielle

usually disciplined the child and her older half-siblings.1

These issues came to a head on Christmas in 2021 after an argument about

when to exchange the child. After that dispute, Danielle refused to let Michael see

the child. So he petitioned to establish custody, visitation, and child support in

January 2022. Danielle continued to withhold the child from Michael until the

1 While these proceedings were pending, the child told her therapist that Danielle

had given the child’s older sister a bloody nose. The therapist made a report to
the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, but it was not confirmed.
5

weekend before the temporary hearing in March—a period of almost ninety days.

After the hearing, the district court placed the child in the parties’ temporary joint

legal custody and Danielle’s physical care, with alternating weekend visitation for

Michael, plus every other Thursday night until Friday morning. Although the court

ordered the parties to split the transportation duties, Michael assumed

responsibility for most of the driving because Danielle would often refuse to meet

him.

The case proceeded to trial about a year later—in May 2023. But Danielle,

who was representing herself, did not appear because she “mixed up [the] court

times accidentally.” Michael was there, and after he presented his evidence and

witnesses, the district court took the matter under advisement. Immediately upon

discovering her mistake, Danielle filed a letter asking for a new trial date, which

Michael resisted. The court granted Danielle’s request in part, ordering that it

would “restart the trial from where it concluded to allow both parties to continue the

presentation of their evidence.” Danielle hired an attorney to represent her, and

the second half of the trial was held in August.

In its custody decree the following August, the district court found that

Danielle’s testimony was not credible on several issues, including “her romantic

relationships.” While the court found that Michael’s assault on Danielle was

“reprehensible,” it concluded “that rehabilitation has worked for Michael and has

allowed him to become the father that [the child] deserves.” In contrast, the court

found that “Danielle continues to make choices of having significant others in her

life that are not only unhealthy for [the child] but are also a risk to [the child’s]

safety.” The court also weighed Danielle’s “unwillingness to cooperate with
6

transportation” and her pattern of “withholding visitation from Michael” in its

physical-care determination. In the end, the court found it was in the child’s best

interests to be placed in the parties’ joint legal custody and Michael’s physical care.

II. Standard of Review

We review physical-care determinations de novo. Hensch v. Mysak, 902

N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. Despite

our de novo review, we “afford deference to the district court for institutional and

pragmatic reasons.” Hensch, 902 N.W.2d at 824. This means we give weight to

the court’s fact findings, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses.

Id.; see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).

III. Analysis

Danielle claims the court erred in denying her request for physical care

because she was the child’s primary caretaker, which she contends “is the most

significant factor in the determination of physical care, and outweighs any of the

concerns raised by Michael.” While that is an important factor, it is not the most

significant one. Our foremost consideration is the best interests of the child. See

Iowa R. App. 6.904(3)(n); Hensch, 902 N.W.2d at 824. And our objective is to

place the child in the environment most likely to bring the child “to health, both

physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733

N.W.2d 683, 698 (Iowa 2007).

In determining which physical-care arrangement is in the child’s best

interests, we are guided by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2022) and

In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). Hansen, 733

N.W.2d at 696; see also Iowa Code § 600B.40(2) (directing the court to apply
7

section 598.41(3) in non-dissolution custody cases). “Although our court

recognizes greater primary care experience as a factor to be considered, it is not

dispositive.” Flick v. Stoneburner, No. 15-1930, 2016 WL 2743449, at *2 (Iowa Ct.

App. May 11, 2016) (collecting cases placing a child in the physical care of the

parent who was not previously the primary caretaker). “Instead, we consider

whether the party requesting physical care has been an ‘active and interested

parent since [the child’s] birth.’” Pieper v. Gable, No. 24-0868, 2025 WL 856765,

at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2025) (quoting In re Marriage of Berning, 745 N.W.2d

90, 93 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007)); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d).

Despite his sixteen-month incarceration, Michael has been an engaged

parent and a steady presence in the child’s life since she was born. Although the

child resided primarily with Danielle before these proceedings, Michael testified

that he had visitation with the child nearly every weekend—before, during, and

after his imprisonment. In 2021, when Danielle had surgery to remove a tumor on

her brain, he cared for the child for at least four weeks. And during the summer of

2023, the parties alternated care of the child every two weeks until school started.

Danielle agreed that Michael and the child had a close relationship. Michael was

involved with the child’s education, medical needs, and extracurricular activities.

He helped her with homework, set up counseling for her in May 2022, and signed

her up for flag football. Michael had a consistent routine for the child in his home

and, in addition to paying Danielle child support, provided for all her basic needs—

“down to, like, socks and underwear.” Because Michael has proven himself to be

a capable caretaker, Danielle’s historical role as the child’s primary caretaker does

not outweigh the concerns identified by the court, as Danielle contends on appeal.
8

See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 697 (noting there are circumstances that can

“outweigh considerations of stability, continuity, and approximation”). Those

concerns included Danielle’s relationships and her failure to support Michael’s

relationship with the child.

We have stated that “if a parent seeks to establish a home with another

adult, that adult’s background and his or her relationship with the child[] becomes

a significant factor in a custody dispute.” In re Marriage of Decker, 666 N.W.2d

175, 179 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003). One reason for this is “because the type of

relationship the parent has sought to establish and the manner he or she has

established it is an indication of where that parent’s priority for his or her children

is in his or her life.” Id. The record shows that Danielle has placed her relationships

above the child’s needs. For instance, when asked about her ex-boyfriend’s text

messages to Michael that called the child offensive names, Danielle testified, “he

was probably trying to get under Mike’s skin.” The district court discounted that

explanation, finding “no reason why [the ex-boyfriend] would talk about [the child]

in such a manner, unless that is truly how he felt.” We agree. And the record

shows that, despite Danielle’s denials otherwise, she was still in contact with that

man before trial.

The court was also concerned about Danielle’s relationship with Yako.

While Danielle maintained they never lived together, the court found that Michael’s

exhibits showed Yako was smoking marijuana and in possession of a semi-

automatic firearm in Danielle’s home. Although the court stated it lacked sufficient

evidence to conclude that Danielle was using marijuana, “she was at least allowing

marijuana to be used by others around” the child. See Winter, 223 N.W.2d at 166
9

(considering the “nature of each proposed environment, including its stability and

wholesomeness”). There were also concerns about domestic violence between

Yako and Danielle. The child told her therapist that she was worried about her

mother’s “many different or multiple boyfriends,” that she had witnessed one of

them physically abuse Danielle, and that she was scared in her mother’s home.

See Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1, 7–8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (finding mother’s

“rocky” relationship and “chaotic home life” weighed against keeping the child in

her physical care in a modification action). Danielle claimed Yako had not been in

her home since January 2021, but the court did not find her to be credible. Michael

testified that he saw Yako’s vehicle at Danielle’s house the morning of their first

trial date in May 2023. And Danielle admitted that after Yako was released from

prison, she and the child went to an arcade with him.

As for Danielle’s ability to support Michael’s relationship with the child, the

court found that Danielle “denied Michael parenting time with [the child] for

significant periods of time,” including for close to ninety days after their dispute

about the Christmas holiday. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (considering

“[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child’).

Danielle also, according to Michael, made transportation “a nightmare.” The

temporary order required Danielle to pick the child up at the end of Michael’s

visitation, but Michael testified she only did that four times. The rest of the time,

Michael transported the child both ways.

“The ability of each parent to actively support the other parent’s relationship

with the child is an important factor in determining the physical [care]

arrangement.” In re Marriage of Manson, 503 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa Ct. App.
10

1993). Indeed, that ability is “instrumental in the successful mental, emotional, and

social development” of a child. Id. Danielle’s failure in that area supports the

court’s decision to place the child in Michael’s physical care. See In re Marriage

of Shada, No. 23-1912, 2024 WL 4222888, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024)

(collecting cases placing children with the historical non-primary parent due to the

primary parent’s inability to support their relationship).

After considering all the evidence and relevant factors, we conclude that

Michael can provide the environment most likely to bring the child “to health, both

physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. We

accordingly agree with the district court that it was in the child’s best interests to

be placed in Michael’s physical care.

AFFIRMED.