Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-375 / 11-1635 Filed June 13, 2012

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTOPHER A. DIETER AND EMILY J. DIETER Upon the Petition of CHRISTOPHER A. DIETER, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning EMILY J. DIETER, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Gary L. McMinimee, Judge.

A mother appeals the physical care provision of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

Julie G. Mayhall of Green, Siemann & Greteman, P.L.C., Carroll, for appellant. Vicki R. Copeland of Wilcox, Polking, Gerken, Schwarzkopf, Copeland & Williams, P.C., Jefferson, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Danilson, JJ.

2 VAITHESWARAN, P.J. Emily Dieter appeals the physical care provision of a dissolution decree. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Emily and Christopher Dieter married in 2001 and had three children. Emily stayed at home with the children for most of the marriage, with the exception of a few brief periods of employment at part-time, minimum wage jobs. In 2010, she began a relationship with a man named Jacob Davis. The same year, Christopher petitioned to dissolve the marriage. The district court entered a temporary order granting the parents joint physical care of the children, pending trial. At trial, Christopher offered a document purporting to be an online summary of court proceedings involving Davis. The district court accepted the document, subject to Emily's foundational objection. Following trial, the court entered a dissolution decree that made reference to the exhibit. The court

placed the children in Christopher's physical care, reasoning as follows: Emily has far more experience providing the children's physical care, but Christopher has demonstrated during these proceedings that he has the capacity and interest to do so. . . . Ultimately, this court concludes that the scales tip in favor of Christopher because of Emily's relationship with Davis. There is little doubt that Emily is convinced that Davis is the right person for her and that she intends to pursue that relationship. What concerns the court about her relationship with Davis is that Emily seems more concerned about protecting that relationship than she is about the impact of that relationship on the children. If Emily were awarded physical care of the children, Davis would necessarily be intimately involved with them. This court does not question Emily's sincerity when she says that Davis would be a good stepparent and role model, but it cannot rely on her feelings and unsupported belief in Davis when all objective evidence suggests that his extensive involvement with the children would not be in their best interests.

3 On appeal, Emily contends the district court should not have (1) admitted Davis's online records or (2) relied on the information about Davis in denying her physical care of the parties' children. We need not address the first issue

because there is enough other evidence to affirm the district court's physical care determination. See In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 539

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CHRISTOPHER A. DIETER AND EMILY J. DIETER Upon the Petitio

Iowa Law