Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-138 / 09-1502 Filed April 21, 2010

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMBER RAE MOORE AND BRYAN SCOTT MOORE Upon the Petition of AMBER RAE MOORE k/n/a, AMBER RAE PARGMANN, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning BRYAN SCOTT MOORE, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Annette J. Scieszinski, Judge.

Amber Pargmann appeals from the provisions in the dissolution decree that granted the parties joint physical care of their child. AFFIRMED.

Steven Gardner of Kiple, Denefe, Beaver, Gardner & Zingg, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellant. Heather M. Simplot of Harrison, Moreland & Webber, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellee.

Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.

2 POTTERFIELD, J. Amber Pargmann, f/k/a Amber Moore, appeals from the provisions of the dissolution decree that granted the parties joint physical care of their son. She contends she should have been awarded physical care. Upon our review, we affirm the decision of the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Amber and Bryan ("Scott") were married in 2004. Amber filed for divorce in July 2008. During a brief period in which they attempted reconciliation, Amber became pregnant. Their son was born in April 2009. Trial in this matter was originally scheduled for May, but was continued until August. Following the continuance, Scott filed an application for temporary custody, visitation, and child support, asking that the court award joint legal and physical custody. An order on temporary matters, dated June 10, 2009, placed the child in the parties' joint physical care. Under the terms of the temporary order, the parties cared for their son on alternating weeks. At the August 4, 2009 trial, Amber asked that the court grant her physical care, while Scott asked the court to grant joint physical care. Amber was thirty-two years old at the time of trial. She is employed by John Deere in Ottumwa as a supervisor in the product engineering department. She earns about $86,700 per year. She is in good health. She resides in the marital home outside of Ottumwa on two acres of property. Scott was thirty-four years old at the time of the dissolution hearing. He, too, is employed at John Deere in Ottumwa. He is a supervisor on the factory floor. His base pay is $65,160 per year; however, with overtime and bonuses he,

3 too, earned $86,700 in 2008. Scott resides about twenty miles from Ottumwa, in Bloomfield, but commutes to work in Ottumwa. He shares a residence with

Brandi Madden and her two daughters from a prior marriage, ages twelve and seven; Scott and Brandi were expecting a child in September 2009. The parties' son is healthy and happy. He attends daycare Monday

through Friday, the parent then having custody dropping him off. Each parent has the child for one week, with a mid-week three-hour visit by the non-custodial parent. The temporary arrangement, though in effect for only a couple of months prior to trial, appeared to be working well. On August 20, 2009, the district court filed a dissolution decree for the parties. The court determined Amber and Scott should have joint legal custody of their son, and joint physical care (alternating weeks and mid-week visitation). Amber purchases healthcare coverage for the child. Scott was ordered to pay monthly child support to Amber of $115. Amber appeals the physical care provision of the dissolution decree. II. Scope and Standard of Review. Because this is a dissolution case, the scope of review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give weight to the fact findings of the district court,

especially on credibility issues, but we are not bound by the court's findings. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g). "In child custody cases, the first and governing consideration of the courts is the best interests of the child." Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o).

4 III. Discussion. When physical care of a minor child is an issue in dissolution proceedings, the district court may grant the parents joint physical care, or choose one parent to be the caretaker of the children. In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Iowa 2007). The court's objective is to place a child in the environment most likely to bring the child to healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). Joint physical care is a viable option when it is in the child's best interests. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007). If the request is made for joint physical care, then a denial of the request by the court must include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interests of the children. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMBER RAE MOORE AND BRYAN SCOTT MOORE Upon the Petition of

Iowa Law