 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Hale8/28/2002
Respondent appeals from the physical care and property distribution provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Tim Hale appeals from the custodial and economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He contends (1) joint physical care is in the children's best interests, and (2) the division of property was inequitable because the district court's valuation of assets was inaccurate and it failed to give him credit for a premarital personal injury settlement. Shelly Hale requests appellate attorney fees. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS.
Tim and Shelly Hale were married in 1989. They have three children, Chelsie, born in 1991, Andrea, born in 1992, and Zachary, born in 1994. Tim has been a self-employed farmer throughout the parties' marriage. He also sells seed. Shelly has very limited employment experience. She devoted her attention to homemaking during the parties' marriage.
Shelly filed a petition for a no-contact order in May 2000, after an episode in the home which the children witnessed. As a result of this incident, the court issued a protective order limiting contact between the parties. Shelly filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on June 20, 2000. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the district court entered a temporary order awarding Tim and Shelly joint legal custody and physical care of the three children. The parties agreed on their schedule for exercising joint physical care.
Trial was held in May of 2001. The main focus of the trial was on whether Tim and Shelly should be awarded joint physical care of the children. Shelly requested she be awarded physical care. Tim requested joint physical care. Following trial, the district court awarded primary physical care of the children to Shelly and divided the marital assets. Tim appeals.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
In this equity case our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We examine the entire record and adjudicate rights anew on the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Smith, 573 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Iowa 1998). We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). This is because the trial court has a firsthand opportunity to hear the evidence and view the witnesses. In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992).
III. PHYSICAL CARE.
Tim contends joint physical care is in the best interest of the parties' children because it would allow them to spend the maximum amount of time with each parent. He claims the parties demonstrated mutual cooperation when dealing with the children after the temporary custody order was entered. He points out that the parties live in a small town, and the children would be in the same school district when residing with either parent. At trial, he requested that physical care be alternated every two weeks.
In any custody determination, the primary consideration is the best interests of the children. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(o); In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). The court's objective is to place the children in the environment most likely to bring them to healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d at 683. In considering what custody arrangement is in the best interest of the children, the court is required to consider statutory factors. Iowa Code ยง 598.41(3) (1999). All factors bear upon the "first and governing consideration" of what will be in the best long-term interests of the children. In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 424 (Iowa 1984). These statutory factors and the fac
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|