Opinion
No. 6-134 / 05-0852
Filed March 29, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, C.H. Pelton, Judge.
Frank Schveiger appeals from provisions of the dissolution decree dissolving his marriage to Julia Schveiger. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Ronald L. Ricklefs, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Patricia Zamora of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Frank Schveiger appeals from child support, visitation, and property division provisions of the dissolution decree dissolving his marriage to Julia Schveiger.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The parties were married in 1982. Julia filed a petition for dissolution in July 2004. The parties agree that the basic fact findings of the district court, summarized here, are essentially accurate. The parties have four children: Christopher, born in 1985; Kyle, born in 1987; Katherine, born in 1989; and Cody, born in 1994. Julia was forty-four at the time of the dissolution hearing. She graduated from college with a Bachelor of Science in nursing in 1983. Throughout most of the marriage she has been employed in the healthcare field at one or more part-time jobs so she could spend more time with the children. Her most recent employment has focused on teaching and training for breast-feeding mothers in the home and in a hospital setting. She earns approximately $12,000 per year as a lactation consultant for a hospital in the Quad Cities. She also has established her own business, "Lactation Station," providing consulting services and procuring equipment and supplies for new mothers. The business earns approximately $8,000 per year. Julia also directs the family business called "Dino Jump." The business rents inflatable facilities for children's entertainment. It earns approximately $5,000 per year.
Frank was forty-six at the time of trial. He is a high school graduate and has worked as a mechanic all of his adult life. He has earned approximately $50,000 per year during the past few years. He serves as a volunteer reserve police officer and sometimes supplements his income as a security guard. Throughout the marriage, Frank has focused his life largely on employment and income, often being gone from the home for twelve to fourteen hours a day. He also assisted in the Dino Jump business. In the years preceding the filing of the petition, Frank was often harsh with the children and Julia. Testimony at trial recounted physical altercations between Frank and Julia, and Frank and the two older boys. In 2000 and again in 2004, Julia obtained a consent domestic abuse no-contact order against Frank. Frank is estranged from the two oldest children.
In relevant part, the dissolution decree awarded joint legal custody of the three younger children and placed them in Julia's physical care. The court ordered visitation for the two younger children with Frank every other weekend and one evening per week until 8 p.m., as well as alternate holidays and two weeks during the summer. Frank was ordered to pay child support of $1,040 per month for three children, to be reduced to $868 per month for two children and $600 per month for one child.
The court divided the parties' assets and liabilities, valuing the Dino Jump business, equipment, and supplies at $5,000 and the Lactation Station business, equipment, and supplies at $1,000. Both businesses were awarded to Julia.
Frank appeals, arguing the district court erred (1) in basing its child support calculations on Frank's prior employment, rather than his employment at the time of trial and/or in not considering the income potential of Julia in its determination; (2) in granting less than reasonable and appropriate visitation to Frank and in not specifying the holidays to be alternated and times of visits; and (3) in undervaluing the businesses awarded to Julia.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the district court's findings of fact, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14( g); In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992).
III. Child Support
Frank argues the district court erred in basing its child support calculations on his prior employment, rather than his employment at the time of trial. He contends his income decreased and there is no basis in the record to assume his overtime income would remain the same in his new position.
The court must determine a parent's current monthly income from the most reliable evidence presented. In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Iowa 1991). The district court did not indicate it was basing its child support calculations solely on Frank's prior employment. Frank testified he is making more at his current job than he did at his previous position, and receives better benefits. On appeal, Frank does not point to evidence in the record related to his overtime pay, and we find nothing to support his contention that his income had decreased due to a reduction in overtime hours. In addition, Frank does not dispute the district court's finding that he supplements his income with other part-time jobs and businesses. We conclude the district court correctly determined Frank's income based on the evidence presented at trial.
Frank also contends the district court should have considered Julia's income-producing potential in determining her net income for child support purposes. There was no evidence presented at trial related to what Julia could earn in a full-time position, other than testimony of pure speculation by Frank. Julia testified she had not practiced as an RN for a number of years and would have to go through training to update her credentials prior to returning to full-time nursing.
Julia works several part-time jobs and raises four children. It was entirely reasonable for the district court to calculate her income based on her current part-time earnings. See In re Marriage of Nelson, 570 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa 1997) ("As the mother of four, it was eminently reasonable for [former wife] to choose to spend half of her working hours parenting the children. . . ."). The district court correctly calculated Julia's income. We affirm the district court's child support calculations.
IV. Visitation
Frank requests an expansion of the ordered visitation to include (1) up to six weeks in the summer, subject to Julia having the first option of care if Frank has to work during that time period and (2) one overnight every other week. Frank also contends additional specificity is needed as it relates to visitation during holidays, and requests a remand to the district court to address the designation and timing of holiday visits. Julia requests that the court reduce the amount of visitation in the children's best interests.
In determining visitation rights the court's governing consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Drury, 475 N.W.2d 668, 670 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). Liberal visitation rights are in the best interests of the child, unless "direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent." Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a)(2003); Drury, 475 N.W.2d at 670.
The record in this case reveals a history of verbal abuse and physical violence by Frank toward Julia and the children. Julia obtained no-contact orders against Frank on two occasions. She testified she was concerned about Frank's unpredictable behavior and explained that the two younger children had told her "they wished they didn't even have to go every other weekend" for visitation with Frank. She admitted, however, that there had been no incidents of verbal abuse during the children's visits with Frank between August 2004 and trial in March 2005. According to the testimony at trial, the children are well-adjusted and doing well in school and other activities. A counselor told Frank the children were "doing fine" and did not need counseling.
Given the circumstances, we conclude the visitation schedule ordered by the district court is equitable and in the children's best interests. However, we agree with Frank that additional specificity as it relates to holiday visitation is necessary. Therefore we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of determining the designation and timing of holiday visits.
V. Valuation of Businesses
Frank argues his valuation of Dino Jump at $30,000 is a more reasonable and realistic assessment of the business's income stream, tax benefits of the depreciation and write-offs. He claims Julia's valuation, relied upon by the district court, is based on physical assets alone and therefore "not a realistic option." He further contends the district court's valuation of Julia's Lactation Station business at $1,000 was inconsistent with assets and tax benefits indicated in tax documents and the income of $8,000 per year produced by the company.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented at trial, and we conclude the district court's valuation of the two businesses was within the permissible range of the evidence. See In re Marriage of Vieth, 591 N.W.2d 639, 640 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). The district court's decision was fair and equitable under the circumstances, and we will not disturb it on appeal. See id. at 641.
VI. Conclusion
We affirm the district court and remand for a determination of the designation and timing of holiday visits. We do not retain jurisdiction. Costs on appeal are taxed one-half to each party.