In its order, the district court found no change in circumstances from the
last order. Specifically, it held:
The only change in circumstances William has shown is that the
relationship between Crystal and A.N. has deteriorated. This can
hardly be considered as unforeseen. It is not uncommon for the
parent-child relationship to grow strained and come under stress as
a child moves through her teenage years. The fact that Crystal
occasionally uses profanity and calls her daughters names when
she is angry, while unacceptable, is not a sound reason for
changing physical care.
We agree with the district court that William has not established that a
substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the last
order that would support a change of physical care. William makes various
allegations including that Crystal and Jesse continue to consume alcohol in the
presence of the children, that Jesse has driven the children without a valid
driver’s license, and that Crystal’s home is unsafe and unsuitable for the children.
William has not provided sufficient evidence to support these allegations.
William testified the children would prefer to live with him, but that alone is
not a substantial change in circumstances that would necessitate a modification.
See In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 239 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000)
(discussing a child’s preference as to child custody is a factor considered by the
court but is not controlling). He further testified DHS’s involvement with the
children provided an adequate basis for modification. The children’s well-being
does not appear to be adversely affected under the current physical care order,
as the record indicates both children are thriving and healthy. Additionally, we
agree with the district court that although DHS was involved with this family, the