Joshua Scott Vastine v. Stephanie Ali Keough

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-1145
Filed May 13, 2026
_______________

Joshua Scott Vastine,
Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Stephanie Ali Keough,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Celene Gogerty, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Pleasant Hill, attorney for
appellant.

Teresa M. Pope of Pope Law, PLLC, Des Moines, attorney for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.
Opinion by Tabor, C.J.

1
TABOR, Chief Judge.

Joshua Vastine and Stephanie Keough have a young son, L.V.
Stephanie appeals a district court order awarding Joshua physical care of
L.V., subject to her parenting time. As the court found, both parents had
significant substance-use issues and were “in basically the same place in their
recovery.” But the court found Joshua to be more realistic about addressing
his addiction, while Stephanie minimized her substance use. After reviewing
the record anew, we reach the same conclusion as the district court.1

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

Joshua and Stephanie met during inpatient treatment for alcohol
addiction in 2018. They began dating and moved in together that December.
The following October, L.V. was born. Around the time of L.V.’s first
birthday, the parents began drinking again. Their alcohol use spiked in 2021
when the couple went on vacation while L.V. stayed with Joshua’s parents.
Those grandparents continued to help with L.V.’s care and supported the
parents’ efforts to maintain sobriety when they returned to Iowa.

But by November 2021, the grandparents were so concerned about the
parents’ substance use that they petitioned for guardianship of L.V., which
the court granted. Joshua and Stephanie then returned to inpatient
treatment. Soon thereafter, they ended their relationship and took divergent
paths.

1
Visitation and custody issues ancillary to a paternity action are tried in equity. See
Iowa Code § 600B.40 (2024). “We review the district court’s custody determination de
novo.” Ruden v. Peach, 904 N.W.2d 410, 412 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). We give weight to the
district court’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, but they are not binding on
us. Id.

2
Stephanie successfully completed inpatient treatment and moved to
St. Charles, Missouri, to live with her father and continue with outpatient
treatment. By September 2022, the paternal grandparents believed Stephanie
could safely care for L.V. So the district court ended the guardianship, and
L.V. went to live with Stephanie and the maternal grandfather in Missouri.
After that, Stephanie reduced L.V.’s contact with his paternal grandparents,
eventually stopping it altogether, despite the supportive relationship they
previously shared. She also significantly restricted L.V.’s interactions with
Joshua and petitioned to change L.V.’s last name.

In October 2022, on the hearing date for that petition, Stephanie
overused a medication, Clonazepam, that had been prescribed to help with
her alcohol use. Stephanie’s father was so concerned that he called the police.
When officers arrived at their home, Stephanie picked up L.V., ran across a
busy street, lost her balance, and dropped the three-year-old child.

This incident resulted in another emergency guardianship, and L.V.
returned to Iowa with Joshua’s parents. Stephanie pleaded guilty to child
endangerment and received a suspended sentence.2 She then sought
treatment for Clonazepam use, and her new doctor lowered her prescription.
She testified her goal is to stop using that medication.

Following her child-endangerment conviction, Stephanie’s contact
with L.V. was limited. For a year, she had no in-person visits. Her interaction
with L.V. restarted slowly with three supervised visits in October 2023,
March 2024, and May 2024. As to her alcohol use, she testified that she has
been sober since 2021.

She remained on probation at the time of trial but testified the charge would be
2

expunged from her record upon its completion.

3
Meanwhile, Joshua took his own rehabilitative journey. In 2022, he
was arrested twice for operating while intoxicated and was placed on
probation. He completed inpatient treatment that October, after which he
began short, supervised visits with his son. Joshua’s parents slowly increased
his visitation time with L.V. so long as he took certain steps. For example,
they required Joshua to have a negative breathalyzer test before each visit. As
part of his probation, Joshua wore a SCRAM bracelet, which monitored his
alcohol consumption.3 But after its removal in 2023, he relapsed, violating his
probation. He served time for that violation, and his probation ended that
summer. He then began an outpatient treatment program.

His supervised visits with L.V. resumed. His parents required him to
take breathalyzer tests and share his location so they could track him. Joshua
testified that his parents have supported him and held him accountable for
his substance use. By August 2023, L.V. and Joshua had several visits each
week, including overnights at Joshua’s house. Joshua worked with his parents
to understand L.V.’s mental-health, medical, and educational needs.

In April 2024, Joshua petitioned to establish custody, visitation, and
support under Iowa Code chapter 600B. The district court issued a
temporary order granting Joshua and Stephanie joint legal custody, granting
Joshua physical care subject to Stephanie’s parenting time and ordering
Stephanie to pay child support. While this action was pending, Joshua
progressed in his recovery and in building trust with L.V.’s grandparents, so
the court ended the second guardianship in March 2025.

The district court considered Joshua’s petition in March 2025. It
heard testimony from Joshua, Stephanie, Joshua’s mother, and Stephanie’s

3
SCRAM stands for secure continuous remote alcohol monitor.

4
significant other. At the time of trial, L.V. lived with Joshua, and Stephanie
had visits with L.V. twice a month. Joshua has had stable employment since
August 2023. He testified he’d be able to put L.V. on his insurance. Joshua
shared a house with his significant other.4 They had a child together, and his
partner has two children who live in the house part time. L.V. is “best
friend[s]” with one of those children and chooses to share a room with him.

Stephanie rents a house with her fiancé in Missouri. L.V. has his own
room there. Her fiancé has sole custody of his two teenage daughters.
Stephanie has worked nine jobs in the last five years5 and was on maternity
leave at the time of trial. During her maternity leave and while her daughter
was in the NICU, she picked up a part-time job as a server. Starting after the
trial, she had a full-time job lined up as a biller and coder at a laboratory.

At the time of trial, L.V. was five years old and attending a full-day pre-
kindergarten school. L.V. went to play therapy and had just switched from
one session a week to two. The parents believe L.V. benefits from play
therapy. L.V. maintains his relationship with his paternal grandparents and
gets along well with the other children on both sides of the family. Under the
temporary order, L.V. visited Stephanie in Missouri every other weekend.
Joshua testified that the numerous hours traveling every other weekend took
a toll on L.V.

After the trial, the district court granted Joshua and Stephanie joint
legal custody. The ruling gave Joshua physical care subject to Stephanie’s
parenting time. Under the parenting plan, Stephanie has time with L.V. every

4
They met while receiving treatment for alcohol use.
5
The short nature of a few of those jobs is because she worked those jobs through
a temporary agency.

5
other weekend from 6:00 p.m. Friday until 3:00 p.m. Sunday, and the
location alternates between Iowa and Missouri so that L.V. only travels to
Missouri once a month. Holidays alternate between each parent, and the
court gave Stephanie three one-week periods of parenting time during
summer breaks. The district court also ordered Stephanie to pay $681.00 per
month in child support.6

Stephanie appeals.

II. Analysis

Stephanie raises three issues on appeal. First, she requests physical
care. Second, she seeks more parenting time. Third, she asks to pay less of
L.V.’s transportation and lodging expenses. We address each claim in turn.

A. Physical Care

In deciding physical care, our most important consideration is the
child’s best interests. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(n). Joshua and Stephanie
were not married, so we operate under Iowa Code chapter 600B. We apply
the same legal framework to custody and visitation matters involving
unmarried parents as we do to issues arising between parents who had been
married to each other. Iowa Code § 600B.40(2) (cross referencing Iowa Code
section 598.41).

To determine what care arrangement is in L.V.’s best interests, we
consider the factors listed in section 598.41(3). See In re Marriage of Hansen,
733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007) (paraphrasing those nonexclusive factors

6
As part of its findings of fact, the district court noted Joshua has a medical
marijuana card, which he maintains for a seizure disorder. It found this “somewhat
concerning” but noted “there is no evidence he has abused marijuana.”

6
as “suitability of parents, whether psychological and emotional needs and
development of child will suffer from lack of contact with and attention from
both parents, quality of parental communication, the previous pattern of
caregiving, each parent’s support of the other, wishes of the child, agreement
of the parents, geographic proximity, and safety”); see also In re Marriage of
Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) (listing factors to consider). In
making a physical-care determination, our goal “is to place the child in an
environment most likely to bring the child to healthy physical, mental, and
social maturity.” In re Marriage of Courtade, 560 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa 1996).

Stephanie contends the district court disregarded her historic role as
L.V.’s primary caretaker. While she may have taken on greater responsibility
when the parents lived together, “no one criterion is determinative.” See
Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 697. It is important that Joshua has stable employment
and has proven he can meet L.V.’s needs, both emotional and physical. Joshua
owns a home and allows L.V. to maintain consistent contact with the paternal
grandparents, who previously served as his guardians. L.V. gets along well
with the other children in their home and has formed a trusted relationship
with his play therapist.

To his credit, Joshua supports L.V.’s relationship with Stephanie and
the relatives on her side of the family. Joshua testified,
I just try to keep a healthy relationship between the two of them. That’s
his mom and I respect that. I want that to be—it’s important to me, too.

....
I encourage him to keep in touch with not just his mom but his
relatives, his cousins down in St. Charles. And she does FaceTime every
night. He does FaceTime her every single night before bed.

7
In contrast, Stephanie cut off L.V.’s contact with his father and
paternal grandparents when L.V. was in her care. True, she testified that she
had been angry with Joshua then, and she now supports his relationship L.V.
But she was critical that Joshua “enable[d]” and “spoiled” L.V. because he
needed help tying his shoes and getting in and out of the car.

Beyond this, we share the district court’s concern that Stephanie does
not demonstrate a full understanding of how her addiction impacts her
parenting. She testified that the 2021 guardianship over L.V. was
unnecessary, despite both her and Joshua’s relapses. 7 And like the district
court, we find it troubling that Stephanie keeps many unused prescription
drugs in her house. Testimony revealed she does not always take her
medication but she still gets her prescriptions filled. When asked if she has
any concerns about having “excess Hydroxyzine, Trazodone, Topiramate,
Fluoxetine, and Clonazepam in her home” given her history of addiction, she
answered, “Not at all.”

Considering the whole record, we find that Joshua will continue to
foster L.V.’s relationship with his mother. And because Joshua provides an
environment more “likely to bring the child to healthy physical, mental, and
social maturity,” it is in L.V.’s best interests for Joshua to have physical care.
Courtade, 560 N.W.2d at 38.

B. Parenting Time

In the alternative to her argument for physical care, Stephanie
contends the district court should have granted her “more extensive summer
7
To Stephanie’s credit, she testified that she does not believe she’s a good parent
under the influence of any substance and doesn’t want L.V. to witness her in that state.
But that recognition conflicts with her testimony that the guardianship should not have
been entered in 2021.

8
visitation with the child and time during all other school breaks, given the
distance between the parties’ residences.” She requests “a majority of the
summer break” and more time during fall, winter, and spring breaks.

When establishing a plan for parenting time, the child’s best interests
remain our top consideration. In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849
(Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) provides for “liberal
visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the
opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact
with both parents.” Granting liberal visitation must be “reasonable and in the
best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

The court’s order gives Stephanie three one-week periods during
summer break and alternates care each year between Stephanie and Joshua
for L.V.’s Thanksgiving, winter, and spring breaks. It’s unclear what
additional time Stephanie would like during those shorter breaks. As to
summer, Stephanie emphasizes that courts can offer longer stretches of
parenting time over summer breaks to ensure maximum contact with both
parents. See In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 238 (Iowa Ct. App.
2000).

True, the district court could have granted Stephanie more visitation
during the summer, but it is not in L.V.’s best interests to have that extended
time in her care. As discussed, Stephanie has not shown a complete
appreciation of how her addiction affects her parenting. Given the lingering
concerns, the district court established an appropriate parenting plan that
balances L.V.’s best interests with reasonable contact with his mother.

9
C. Transportation Costs

Lastly, Stephanie argues the district court erred in assigning her most
of the travel and lodging expenses associated with her in-person visits with
L.V. She asks that both parents share the expenses equally or that we deviate
from the child support guidelines and lower her child support obligation.

Determining who is responsible for transportation expenses depends
on the facts of each case. Zamora v. Gonzales, No. 23-1281, 2025 WL 855364,
at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2025). Here, it is equitable for Stephanie to bear
the brunt of those costs. See Collins v. Natera, No. 18-2060, 2019 WL
6358431, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2019) (collecting cases assigning
transportation costs to noncustodial parent who voluntarily moved away).
Stephanie voluntarily moved to Missouri after the first guardianship was
established. And the record shows that she has a slightly greater income.
Plus, at the time of trial her child support obligations were past due. Thus,
we decline to modify the allocation of transportation costs, nor do we modify
her child support obligation.

D. Attorney Fees

Both parties request appellate attorney fees. It is within our discretion
whether to award attorney fees on appeal. Markey v. Carney, 705 N.W.2d 13,
26 (Iowa 2005). We focus on the parties’ relative financial positions, but we
also consider the merits of the appeal and whether the requesting party was
obliged to defend the district court’s rulings. Id.

Although Joshua prevails in this action, the record shows that the
parties have comparable incomes and Stephanie remains responsible for
most of the travel costs. On this record, we decline to award attorney fees.

AFFIRMED.

10