Opinion
No. 2-220 / 01-1595.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, WILLIAM C. OSTLUND, Judge.
Douglas Dublinski appeals from several provisions of a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED.
Laurel L. Boerner of Boerner Goldsmith Law Firm, P.C., Ida Grove, for appellant.
Warren L. Bush of Bush Law Office, Wall Lake, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Douglas Dublinske appeals from the visitation, child support, and tax dependency exemption provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Douglas and Fonda Dublinske were married on September 5, 1998. They have one minor child: Catherine, born on April 27, 1998. The parties separated in February of 2001 and Fonda filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. Trial was scheduled for September 5, 2001. The parties resolved a number of issues by agreement prior to trial and filed a partial stipulation with the court. The remaining issues were tried to the court.
Following trial, the district court granted Douglas five weeks of summer visitation, set child support in the amount of $289 per month, and awarded Douglas the tax dependency exemption for Catherine every third year commencing in tax year 2003. The court also approved the parties' partial stipulation and incorporated the stipulation into its decree.
On appeal, Douglas contends his summer visitation is inadequate. He also contends his child support should be reduced slightly if he is not allowed the tax dependency deduction for Catherine. Fonda seeks an award of appellate attorney fees.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
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).
III. VISITATION SCHEDULE.
Douglas contends the trial court should have awarded him more summer visitation. The parties' daughter was three years old at the time of trial. Douglas asked the court for three months of summer visitation with Catherine while Fonda requested that he be granted two two-week periods of summer visitation with at least a two-week interval in between. The district court granted Douglas five weeks of summertime visitation in blocks of no more than three consecutive weeks with an interval of at least two weeks between the periods of visitation.
Upon de novo review of the record, we conclude the district court's summer visitation schedule is reasonable and should be affirmed. When combined with other visitation agreed to by the parties in their partial stipulation, we conclude the summer schedule established by the court adequately serves the statutory goal of assuring Douglas the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with his child. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2001). In affirming the visitation schedule, we note that trial courts must be afforded some latitude in fashioning visitation orders. As long as an order provides for visitation that is equitable and reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances of a case, it should be affirmed.
IV. CHILD SUPPORT.
Douglas contends the district court's child support award should be decreased slightly in the years he does not have the dependency deduction for his daughter. Upon review of the record, we disagree. At the commencement of the trial, the parties stipulated that child support should be set by the court in the amount of $289 per month. The trial court adopted the parties' stipulation and set support in that amount. Neither party filed a motion following trial requesting amendment of the trial court's child support order. We affirm on this issue. Douglas has also made the conditional request on appeal that his child support obligation be reduced by twenty-five percent in accordance with the child support guidelines if his request for additional summer visitation is granted. Our decision to affirm the summer visitation schedule established by the trial court renders this issue moot.
V. TAX DEPENDENCY EXEMPTION.
Douglas contends the trial court should have awarded him the dependency deduction for Catherine for state and federal income tax purposes each year, as long as he is paying support and his support is current. At the time of trial, both parties were employed fulltime. Douglas works for a roofing company and Fonda is employed at Job Corps. We conclude the trial court's decision to allow Douglas the dependency exemption every third year is equitable under the circumstances of this case. We affirm on this issue.
VI. APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEES.
Fonda requests an award of appellate attorney fees. Appellate attorney fees are not a matter of right but rest within the sound discretion of the reviewing court . In re Marriage of Erickson, 553 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). We award no appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal are assessed to Douglas. AFFIRMED.