Opinion
No. 2-929 / 02-0699.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, DOUGLAS S. RUSSELL, Judge.
A father appeals the district court's decision regarding his visitation schedule with his son. AFFIRMED.
Barbara Connolly of the Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Karen Volz of Ackley, Kopecky and Kingery, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MAHAN and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Kent Fischer and Paulette Spencer are the unmarried parents of a son, Logan, born in January 1999. After his birth, the parties obtained a decree fixing Spencer as the physical caretaker and affording Fischer liberal visitation either as agreed by the parties or pursuant to a schedule set forth in the decree. The court later expanded the visitation schedule in response to a Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion for enlarged findings and conclusions and a nunc pro tunc order.
When Logan was almost two, Fisher applied to modify the decree to obtain physical care of Logan. The court denied that portion of the application. The court further determined Fischer failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting alteration of the visitation schedule. Fischer appeals, contending the visitation schedule should have been modified. On our de novo review, we agree with the district court.
To show changed circumstances, Fischer relies on Spencer's erratic work hours and her claimed reluctance to communicate with him concerning those hours as well as other matters. Although the record does reflect that the parents had difficulty communicating with each other, this difficulty did not prevent Fischer from exercising liberal visitation. After Spencer's work hours became irregular, she provided Fischer with her schedule to facilitate visitation. She also afforded him the opportunity to exercise visitation on days and for hours not specified in the visitation schedule. Her only stipulation was that, if Fischer intended to exercise unscheduled visitation, he call and let her know in advance.
While it is true Spencer's schedule prevented Fischer from exercising the precise visitation hours prescribed in court orders, we are not persuaded that Spencer purposefully reduced his time with their son. We find no change of circumstances warranting a modification of the visitation orders. See In re Petition of Holub, 584 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).