Amy Ruchotzke v. Shawn Gerardy

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1670
Filed August 7, 2019
AMY RUCHOTZKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
SHAWN GERARDY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Henry W. Latham
II, Judge.
The mother appeals from the provision of the district court’s order for
custody, child support, and visitation giving the father physical care of the parties’
minor child. AFFIRMED.
Amy Ruchotzke, Baldwin, pro se.
Jenny L. Weiss of Fuerste, Carew Juergens & Sudmeier, P.C., Dubuque,
(until withdrawal) for appellant.
Melissa A. Nine of Nine Law Office, Marshalltown, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Amy Ruchotzke appeals from the provision of the district court’s order for
custody, child support, and visitation giving Shawn Gerardy physical care of the
parties’ minor child, T.G., born in October 2014. Amy contends she should be
given physical care of T.G., as she is better equipped to meet his needs. 1 Her
appeal is based on the claim the district court got the facts wrong.
While our review is de novo, In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683,
703 (Iowa 2007), we agree with the district court that the credible evidence at trial
established Amy had an ongoing issue with prescription medications. Although
Amy denied it, the testimony of a mutual friend—who admitted his own drug
addiction and criminal acts—and the medical records from Amy’s pregnancy with
T.G., as well as the medical complications Amy’s youngest child2 had at birth
several months before trial, showed that Amy was unable to stop using prescription
drugs—even when it was in the best interests of her children. Amy, who does not
have a home of her own, a job, or a cellphone, is reliant on her boyfriend to meet
her and her children’s needs. Additionally, Amy’s boyfriend was not supportive of
the relationship between his children and their mothers, and he agreed with Amy’s
decision to withhold T.G. from Shawn for three months before the temporary order
was entered. Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 700 (“The parent awarded physical care is
1
Before the district court, each party requested physical care of T.G. but agreed the court
could consider joint physical care. On appeal, Amy does not renew the request for joint
physical care.
2
Amy’s youngest child was born approximately six months before trial; Amy’s boyfriend is
the child’s father.
3
required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.”); see also Iowa
Code § 598.41(5)(b) (2017).
In contrast, Shawn continued to be employed at his parent’s business and
lived in the home he had for nearly eighteen years. Shawn had never kept T.G.
from Amy, and his girlfriend was a positive influence in T.G.’s life and supported
the relationship between T.G. and Amy.
For these reasons, we agree with the district court that Shawn is the parent
“mostly likely to bring [T.G.] to health, both physically and mentally, and to social
maturity.” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 695. At this time, giving Shawn physical care
of T.G. is in T.G.’s best interests. See In re Marriage of Walton, 577 N.W.2d 869,
871 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (“The best interests of the child[] is the first and governing
consideration in determining the primary care giver of the children.”). We affirm
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).
AFFIRMED.