An Iowa court has ruled against Andrew Christopher Quick in his appeal to modify a custodial decree regarding his child with Morgan Janney. The Court of Appeals of Iowa filed its decision on November 4, 2026, affirming the district court's denial of Quick's requests for expanded visitation and changes to the location of visitation exchanges. This ruling affects both parents and establishes the terms of their custody arrangement moving forward.

The dispute began when Quick and Janney, who have never been married, had a child in 2020. Following their split, Quick faced legal troubles, including a series of criminal charges. In October 2021, they reached a stipulation on custody and visitation, granting them joint legal custody while Janney retained physical care of the child. The visitation schedule allowed Quick parenting time on alternating weekends, with specific conditions for school holidays and summer visits. Due to a no-contact order protecting Janney from Quick, visitation exchanges were initially set to occur at a law enforcement center in Williamsburg.

After the no-contact order expired in November 2023, Quick sought to modify the custody arrangement. He requested changes to the parenting schedule, including moving visitation exchanges to a different location and allowing in-person communication. Quick's requests escalated to seeking physical care of the child, with Janney receiving limited visitation. The district court held a two-day trial to consider Quick's petition.

During the trial, the court found that Quick's claims of changed circumstances were not sufficient to warrant a modification of the existing decree. The court noted that Quick's concerns were largely anticipated at the time of the original agreement. The court stated, "Buyer’s remorse is not a substantial ground to disturb a custodial arrangement, so long as the arrangement continues to be in the best interests of the child." The judge emphasized that the existing arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed Quick's claims of material changes in circumstances. Quick pointed to the expiration of the no-contact order, an incident where Janney allegedly withheld visitation, and limitations on his parenting time due to distance. The court ruled that the expiration of the no-contact order was anticipated and did not constitute a material change. It also found that the incident of withheld visitation was isolated and did not indicate a permanent change in circumstances. Lastly, the court determined that the limitations on Quick's parenting time due to the child's school schedule were expected and already accounted for in the original decree.

Regarding the location for visitation exchanges, Quick requested that all future exchanges occur in Newton. However, the court upheld the district court's decision to allow exchanges to happen at a mutually agreed location, defaulting to Williamsburg if no agreement could be reached. The court noted that both parties had previously shown flexibility in adjusting exchange times and should continue to do so.

The court's ruling has implications for both parents, particularly Quick, as it affirms the existing custody arrangement and visitation schedule. The decision reinforces the principle that modifications to custody and visitation require a showing of material changes in circumstances that were not anticipated at the time of the original decree. This ruling serves as a reminder that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration in custody matters.

Looking ahead, Quick has the option to appeal the ruling, although details regarding any potential further legal action were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the complexities involved in custody disputes, especially when past criminal behavior and protective orders are factors in the arrangement.