Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-921 / 09-0333 Filed December 30, 2009

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAMILLE A. SLOAN CRAIG AND SCOTT EDWARD CRAIG Upon the Petition of CAMILLE A. SLOAN CRAIG n/k/a CAMILLE A. SLOAN SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning SCOTT EDWARD CRAIG, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Timothy J. Finn, Judge.

A father appeals from a district court ruling modifying the child support and visitation provisions of the parties dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Anjela A. Shutts and Diana L. Miller of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Christine R. Keenan, Ames, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ. Danilson, J., takes no part.

2 DOYLE, J. Scott Craig appeals from a district court ruling that modified the child support and visitation provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Camille Sloan Craig, now known as Camille Sloan Schroeder. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Scott and Camilles marriage was dissolved in 1999. The dissolution

decree incorporated the parties stipulation that their then two-year-old son, Channing, would be placed in their joint legal custody and in Camille s physical care. Scott was granted weekly visitation with Channing and ordered to pay child support to Camille. Scott filed his first petition to modify the dissolution decree in May 2000, seeking additional visitation with Channing. The parties agreed in November of that year to modify the decree to provide for visitation every other weekend beginning Friday at 5:00 p.m. and ending on Sunday at 5:00 p.m., along with four weeks of visitation during the summer. Scott and Camille additionally agreed that Scott would be responsible for transporting Channing to and from visits. Scott filed another petition to modify in July 2004 after moving to South Dakota. He alleged that move necessitated a change in his visitation schedule, and he requested that Camille contribute equally to the transportation costs for his visitation with Channing. Following a hearing, the district court entered an order in June 2005 modifying the decree to provide for additional visitation during the summer. The court also increased Scotts child support obligation.

3 Scott filed a third petition to modify in April 2007, seeking physical care of Channing. Prior to the trial, the parties agreed to again modify the summer visitation provisions of the decree with the qualification that Scott provide Camille "with contact telephone numbers and . . . with the location of the child should [Scott] leave the state of South Dakota prior to leaving the state of South Dakota." They also agreed to increase Scotts child support obliga tion to $498 per month based upon a financial affidavit filed by Scott in September 2007 that stated his gross annual income was $41,566.40. In February 2008, Channing told Scott that his stepfather, Craig Schroeder, had hit him multiple times with a toy that Channing had been playing with. Scott became concerned for Channings well-being and decided to take him to South Dakota during their weekend visitation. Scott lied to Camille and told her they were staying at a hotel in Ames for the weekend. He did not answer any of Camilles telephone calls until shortly before he was scheduled to take Channing home. He then told her only that she should have her attorney contact his attorney in the morning. Scott planned on initiating proceedings in South Dakota to obtain physical care of Channing. Camille was "[b]eyond worried.

Beyond upset" because she did not know where Channing was. She contacted police in Iowa and South Dakota, eventually resulting in Scotts arrest1 and Channings return to her. Camille filed an application for rule to show cause several days later, requesting the district court find Scott in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the parties dissolution decree and for his failure to pay child
1

The criminal charge against Scott was later dismissed.

4 support in January and February 2008. Scott responded by filing a petition to modify the decree, seeking physical care of Channing due to the "repeated and ongoing emotional and physical abuse at the hand of [Camilles] husband." Camille filed a counterclaim to Scotts petition for modification, requesting that Scotts visitation "be modified to provide for supervised or restricted visits as recommended by the professionals that have been counseling the minor child." She also sought an increase in Scotts child support obligation. Camille filed a second application for rule to show cause in September 2008, alleging Scott had again failed to satisfy his child support obligation in July, August, and September. Both contempt applications and Scotts petition to

modify2 came before the district court for trial in October 2008. At the time of trial, Scott testified that he was self-employed as a general contractor and land developer. He estimated his net monthly income was zero due to the poor housing market. He testified he was able to "make ends meet" because his mother "helps me with whatever expenses and things that I have." According to Scott, "someday when the market turns back around and we put another development together, then, of course, that money will be repai d to her." He believed he owed his mother "somewhere in the neighborhood of about $60,000."

Camille dismissed her counterclaim at the start of the trial. The district courts ruling nevertheless modified Scotts visitation and child support obligation as requested by Camille in her counterclaim. We note that Scott does not challenge the courts authority to do so in this appeal. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 870 (Iowa 1996) ("[O]ur review is confined to those propositions relied upon by the appellant for reversal on appeal.").

2

5 Scotts mother confirmed that she has given Scott between $55,000 and $60,000 within the past year. She explained that she is involved in real estate and land development in South Dakota, and Scott assists her with that endeavor. He "took over the development of all of the lots and selling of the homes and . . . built some homes himself . . . . to get the whole area developed up." He also attends board meetings with his mother and her partners. But Scotts mother testified, "I dont pay him to work for me. I just help him out when he needs me. . . . Its kind of a loan." Following the trial, the district court entered a ruling denying Scotts petition to modify Channings physical care and finding him in contempt of the visitation and child support provisions of the parties dissolution decree, as alleged by Camille. The court modified the visitation schedule to provide in

relevant part as follows: Scott shall not take Channing from the state of Iowa, or during the summer visitations from the state of South Dakota without the prior notification to Camille of where Channing will be, the address of the same, and a telephone number where he can be reached. The Court expects strict compliance with this provision in order to avoid a situation similar to [that] which occurred in 2008. The court also directed that if "the parties cannot agree on where the exchange of Channing shall take place, it shall occur at the McDonalds restaurant . . . in Boone, Iowa." Finally, the court increased Scotts child support obligation to

$633 based on its finding that Scott had earned nearly $60,000 in the past year for the work he performed for his mother.

6 Scott appeals. He claims the district court erred in (1) modifying his child support obligation; (2) restricting his visitation with Channing; and (3) failing to require the parties to share equally in the transportation expenses for visitation. II. Scope and Standards of Review. Our review is de novo in this equity case. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009). 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). We give weight to the fact findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. 6.904(3)( g); In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 539 (Iowa 2005). III. Discussion. A. Child Support. Scott argues the district court erred in modifying his child support obligation because the court (1) incorrectly calculated his net monthly income; (2) improperly imputed income to him; (3) failed to average his income over a reasonable period of time; and (4) included the "loans" he received from his mother as income. All of these arguments are simply variations of Scotts

primary contention, which is that the court erred in considering the substantial amount of money he received from his mother in modifying his child support obligation. We conclude otherwise. Iowa Code section 598.21C(1)(a) and (b) (2007) provides that the district court may modify child support orders when there is a substantial change in circumstances upon considering, among other things, changes in the "employment, earning capacity, income, or resources of a party" or receipt by a

7 party "of an inheritance, pension, or other gift." The statute additionally provides that a "substantial change of circumstances exists when the court order for child support varies by ten percent or more from the amount which would be due pursuant to the most current child support guidelines." Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CAMILLE A. SLOAN CRAIG AND SCOTT EDWARD CRAIG Upon the Pet

Iowa Law