CHAD A. SPOSETO, Petitioner-Appellant,
KALY M. HEDMAN, n/k/a KALY FETTE, Respondent-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille,
Sposeto appeals the district court order denying his petition
to modify provisions of a custody decree concerning his minor
R. Gravett of Gravett Law Firm, P.C., Urbandale, for
appellant. Katherine S. Sargent, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
Sposeto and Kaly Fette, formerly Kaly Hedman, are the
never-married parents of A.G.H-S., born in 2008. In May 2010,
the parties stipulated and agreed to entry of a paternity
decree establishing custody, physical care, visitation, and
child support. The court awarded the parties joint legal
custody and granted physical care to Kaly, with liberal
visitation to Chad. The court ordered Chad to pay $625 per
month in child support. The court also ordered both parents
to pay one-half of the child's school and agreed-upon
extracurricular activities fees and expenses. A stipulated
modification order was entered in June 2011, modifying
Chad's visitation schedule to accommodate his erratic
work schedule. Custody, child support, and the
fee-and-expense provision remained as previously ordered.
2017, Chad petitioned for modification of physical care to a
shared-care arrangement, citing a change in his work
schedule. Kaly contested the modification of physical care,
but agreed to a modification of Chad's visitation
schedule. Following a trial, the district court denied
Chad's request for a modification of physical care,
finding that though Chad's work schedule changed, it did
"not rise to the level of a material and substantial
change in circumstance that would warrant . . . a change in
physical care." The court did modify Chad's
visitation. The court also found no change in circumstances
warranted a modification of the previously-ordered child
support. The court ordered Chad to pay $1500 of Kaly's
attorney fees. Chad filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, or
amend pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2)
concerning a number of issues, including the court's
failure to address the fee-and-expense provision and the
court's award of attorney fees to Kaly. The court largely
denied Chad's motion. Chad appeals.
challenges the court's finding that his change in work
schedule did not constitute a substantial change in
circumstances justifying a modification of physical care.
Chad also challenges the denial of his request to modify
child support and the apportionment of the child's school
and extracurricular fees and expenses. Chad further
challenges the court's award of attorney fees.
review is de novo. Melchiori v. Kooi, 644 N.W.2d
365, 368 (Iowa 2002). As the party requesting modification,
Chad has the heavy burden to first establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that circumstances have so
substantially changed to warrant a modification of physical
care. See In re Marriage of Harris, 877 N.W.2d 434,
440 (Iowa 2016). "[T]he child's best interest is the
overriding consideration." In re Marriage of
Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007). A court may
modify a child-support obligation "when there is a
substantial change in circumstances." Iowa Code §
598.21C(1) (2017). The district court "has reasonable
discretion in determining whether modification is warranted
and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless
there is a failure to do equity." In re Marriage of
McKenzie, 709 N.W.2d 528, 531 (Iowa 2006) (quoting
In re Marriage of Walters, 575 N.W.2d 739, 741 (Iowa
1998)). The district court has considerable discretion in
deciding whether to award attorney fees. In re Marriage
of Michael, 839 N.W.2d 630, 639 (Iowa 2013). We review
for abuse of that discretion. In re Marriage of
Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 255 (Iowa 2006).
district court's ruling fully considered and addressed
the physical-care, child-support, and expense issues Chad
raises. The district court applied the governing legal and
equitable principles and we approve of the reasons and
conclusions it reached. Further, we cannot say the district
court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees. The
issues involve only the application of well-settled rules of
law and a full opinion of this court would not augment or
clarify existing case law. We affirm by memorandum opinion
pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).
 The court did grant Chad's motion,
in part, on issues not relevant to ...