COMES NOW Petitioner Frederick J. Shaddock, pro se, and moves this Court to dismiss the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage filed July 14, 2025, on the grounds that dissolution is not in the best interests of the parties or the public, given Respondent's unemployment for over a year, lack of financial self-sufficiency, and financial dependence upon Petitioner. In support, Petitioner states as follows:

I. Factual Background

The parties were married on January 17, 2001, in Virginia. The marriage has lasted over 25 years, with no children.
They own two marital homes: 1) a luxury Harbour Square condominium at 520 N Street SW, S-316, Washington, DC and 2) a spacious 5 bedroom Iowa house at 806 North 4th St., Fairfield, Iowa. Each has fixed costs of about $1200 per month (utilities, tax, insurance, mortgage or fees).
Respondent's counsel made an inaccurate claim before this honorable Court that "Respondent joins Petitioner�s request to dissolve the marriage." As her counsel knows, four months ago Petitioner filed his October 10, 2025
Motion To Convert Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage To Petition For Legal Separation.
At the time he filed for divorce in June 2025, Petitioner believed that Respondent had a job and could support herself. She claimed to be working while on her computer. But actually, she had been fired since January 2025.
Respondent has been job hunting in both Washington, D.C., and Fairfield, Iowa. She was earned some income from house cleaning and selling pies at the Fairfield Farmer's Market, but not enough to support herself.
Respondent has over $30,000 in credit card debt, declining credit scores, no medical insurance, no financial help from relatives, and no independent means of support. She refused Petitioner's offer to help, and used her retirement savings to fly to Russia to care for her elderly mother, who requires daily medical assistance following the father's death in December 2025.
Petitioner owns a successful computer consulting company since 1985. He also manages the rental of rooms to guests at both marital homes.
Without Petitioner's support, Respondent would likely have to sell a home, and require Public Assistance, including Welfare for living expenses and medical care.
The parties have a 20 year pattern of initiating and dismissing divorce actions, since 2006. This is their 10th Biennial Walk to the end of the "divorce diving board" without taking the plunge into the dating pool, then backing off. All 9 attempts reconciled mutually by both parties upon consideration of the consequences, including financial and emotional impacts. Their ages (Respondent is 57, Petitioner is 70) make them statistically unlikely to find another partner to avoid loneliness.
Dissolution would leave Respondent without physical and emotional support, worsening her health decline due to stress. Without her husband's support, she would impose a burden on tax paying citizen resources.
Petitioner is willing to continue providing a comfortable life style for her within the marriage at no cost to the public. This includes two Mercedes Benz cars, free for her use, one at each home,
The only financial beneficiaries of a divorce would be her two attorneys, who condone or encourage her to be uncooperative, cause marital tension, and attempt extra-judicial home lock outs.
Respondent wastes marital funds needlessly, despite Petitioner's pleas to save money. He can add her to his family car insurance and mobile phone plans for free. But she has refused assistance.
Respondent has incurred substantial legal fees from years of litigation. Petitioner has conserved marital savings by proceeding pro se with the assistance of a free AI-ttorney. Grok.AI is an unbiased utility that receives no benefit from a division of marital assets. Respondent's decision to retain an expensive counsel, her choice, should not shift the burden of those costs to Petitioner.

II. Legal Argument

Iowa courts have discretion to dismiss petitions for dissolution when not in the parties' or public's best interests, particularly where one spouse is financially dependent and dissolution would lead to public assistance reliance. Under Iowa Code � 598.21 (equitable distribution of marital property), the court considers factors including length of marriage (nearly 25 years), contributions (Petitioner's ongoing financial support), health/age, earning capacity (Respondent's unemployment), and needs.

Financial Dependence and Public Interest: Respondent has no job, substantial debt, and declining health. Dissolution would render her unable to support herself, likely requiring welfare, emotional counseling, and medical assistance at public expense. Iowa courts disfavor outcomes shifting private burdens to the state (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1989), emphasizing self-sufficiency in distribution). Petitioner is willing to maintain support, avoiding this burden.
History of Reconciliation: The parties have reconciled 9 prior divorce attempts, indicating dissolution is not inevitable. Requiring proof of self-support for 6 months before proceeding would allow time for reconciliation or planning, consistent with Iowa's policy favoring marriage preservation.
Mutual Benefit: At their ages, divorce offers no practical advantages (no remarriage prospects, increased loneliness/stress). Legal separation (Iowa Code � 598.28) with equitable sharing (no asset division) is a viable alternative, as previously proposed.

Dismissal without prejudice allows Respondent to re-file for divorce in the future if circumstances change. This will prevent immediate self-harm from decisions based on emotions, not logical practicality.

There are no children to justify alimony. Respondent is under no threat of harm. The Police in Fairfield and DC are aware of her fake 911 fake calls, such as her self-inflicted scratch on her finger. (http://911FakeCalls.com). If she wants to be separate for any reason, she can either go to the marital Fairfield Iowa home or Washington DC condo. Petitioner gives Respondent full rights of access to both marital properties and automobiles.

Respondent should do the same. She should not change locks at the Iowa house nor deactivate Petitioner's elevator key fob at the DC condo. Petitioner needs the fob to access the gym and pool, for doctor ordered exercise at age 70. Respondent has returned Petitioner's U.S. mail to sender in violation of 18 U.S. Code �1701. Such extra-judical "lock outs" by Respondent are actions that cannot be taken except by a Court after a divorce has been finalized, and property is legally divided, and not before.

III. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court:

Dismiss the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage without prejudice.
Require mediation or conciliation procedures before any re-filing.
Order Respondent to demonstrate financial self-sufficiency through employment for 6 months prior to any future dissolution action.
Restore access - order Respondent to cease and desist efforts to interfere with her husband's access to marital properties, and access to his mail delivered to a marital property.
Award such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Frederick J. Shaddock
Frederick J. Shaddock, Pro Se
(641) 819-8006
fred@shaddock.net
Date: February 14, 2026

Certificate of Service

I certify that on February 14, 2026, a true copy was served via email to:
Joe Pavelich (pavelich@spiespavelich.com )
Oksana Shaddock (oksanashaddock@gmail.com )
Robert C. Liotta (rcl@ldelaw.com )

/s/ Frederick J. Shaddock