Opinion
No. 1-919 / 01-0731
Filed September 25, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, E. Richard Meadows, Jr., Judge.
A mother appeals an award of primary physical care and the division of assets by the district court in a dissolution of marriage. AFFIRMED.
Steven Goodlow, of Sinclair Assoc., P.C., Albia, for appellant.
Jean Pendleton, Pingel Templer, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Stacey and Kenneth Williams married and had one child, Michael, in 1993. After twelve years of marriage, Stacey sought a divorce. Following trial, the district court entered a decree awarding Kenneth physical care of Michael. The court also gave Kenneth a greater share of the parties' assets. Stacey has appealed. Our review of the physical care and property issues she raises is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
I. Physical Care
This is a case involving two good parents. Thomas Lazio, an independent custody evaluator, recommended Kenneth as the physical caretaker but stated, "[w]e have very capable and loving parents who both have been actively involved with their child." His assessment is borne out by the record.
For the first three years of Michael's life, Stacey stayed at home and cared for him, while also assisting Kenneth with his trucking business. Later, she worked part-time outside the home but continued to play a significant role in Michael's life. It was not until shortly before this action was filed that she moved out of the family home and began having less contact with her young son. That brief decline in contact, however, changed when the district court awarded her temporary physical care.
Kenneth similarly played an active role in Michael's life. Although he spent about half the year on the road, he was at home with his son the balance of the time. When Stacey moved out of the home, he hired an additional driver to take over his trucking duties, allowing him to remain with Michael. The record reflects that he and Michael shared a close bond.
In this type of close case, where either party would be a suitable parent, the district court's evaluation of the parties is particularly helpful. See In re Marriage of Engler, 503 N.W.2d 623, 625 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). The district court stated:
After assessing each party's demeanor and attitude during trial, the Court finds, while both Kenneth and Stacey have been and are good parents, there is no indication Kenneth would not provide the most appropriate physical care. The court carefully reviewed Mr. Lazio's custody Home Study and found nothing in the other evidence presented at trial to contradict his conclusion.
While Stacey takes issue with this conclusion, pointing to Kenneth's past drug use, his driving schedule, and possible anger management problem, the district court addressed each of these concerns and rejected them. The court's reasons for doing so are entirely supported by the record. We affirm the district court's decision to grant physical care of Michael to Kenneth.
Stacey contends the district court improperly considered evidence of prior settlement negotiations in which Stacey offered to give Kenneth physical care of Michael. Assuming this issue was preserved for review, we find the court had independent grounds for granting Kenneth physical care of Michael. On our de novo review, we have discounted the testimony concerning prior settlement negotiations. See In re Marriage of Clifton, 526 N.W.2d 574, 576 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
II. Property Distribution
Stacey next contends the court's property award was inequitable. We are not persuaded. The district court carefully considered the factors relevant to property distributions. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1) (1999). The court also explained its rationale for adopting certain valuations over others and provided a comprehensive assessment of the parties' assets and liabilities. After engaging in this analysis, the court concluded Kenneth should give Stacey a cash payment of $10,000, leaving her with about $43,000 compared to Kenneth's $75,000, but without the "heavy debt load" assumed by Kenneth. On our de novo review of the record, we see no reason to disturb the court's opinion.