IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SHERRI J. OSWALT-WEILER AND MATTHEW S. WEILER Upon the Petition of SHERRI J. OSWALT-WEILER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning MATTHEW S. WEILER, Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart
appellant appeals the district court's modification of
the visitation provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
D. Puryear and Eric S. Mail of Puryear Law P.C., Davenport,
Jennifer M. Olsen of Olsen Law Firm, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.
Weiler (Matt) appeals the district court's modification
of the visitation provisions of a dissolution decree.
Following our de novo review, we affirm.
and Sherri Oswalt-Weiler (Sherri) married in 2009. They have
of abuse surfaced. Sherri filed for divorce. The Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved.
2014, the district court entered a decree of dissolution. The
court awarded physical care to Sherri. The court awarded Matt
"a one-hour supervised visitation weekly." The
court also awarded Matt four-hour visitation periods on
certain holidays. The court ordered these visits to be
supervised "by a mutually agreed upon individual from
2017, Matt commenced this modification action. He asked the
court "to expand his visitation to allow him
unsupervised, overnight visitation." He also complained
that Sherri failed to keep him informed about the
children's school activities.
part, Sherri asked the court to require "that a
professional supervise all future visitation." She also
asked for a modification of child support and an award of
trial, the district court ordered "all of [Matt's]
visits with his children [to] be supervised by an independent
professional." The court also ordered Sherri to create a
Google calendar and use it to advise Matt of "any school
supervised event in which either child is engaged." The
court also adjusted child support in Sherri's favor.
Finally, the court ordered Matt to pay court costs as well as
$5000 toward Sherri's attorney fees. Matt appeals.
argues the district court improperly reduced his visitation
by requiring professional supervision for all visitation. He
claims his petition only requested an increase in visitation
time; therefore, the district court was precluded from
restricting his visitation. We disagree. In its prayer,
Matt's modification petition asked the district court to
"modify his visitation with the children." This
boundless language invited the district court to enter any
appropriate order concerning visitation. See In re
Marriage of Seward, No. 18-1690, 2019 WL 1934002, at
*2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 1, 2019) (concluding the petitioner
had "fair notice the visitation provision was