Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-854 / 10-0967 Filed February 9, 2011

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHEL LYNNE BLUM AND KEVIN JAMES BLUM Upon the Petition of RACHEL LYNNE BLUM, Petitioner-Appellee / Cross-Appellant, And Concerning KEVIN JAMES BLUM, Respondent-Appellant / Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.

A father appeals from the district court's rulings dissolving his marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

Maura Sailer of Reimer, Lohman & Reitz, Denison, for appellant. Bryan D. Swain and Joseph C. Lauterbach of Salvo, Deren, Schenck & Lauterbach, P.C., Harlan, for appellee.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.

2 VOGEL, P.J. Kevin Blum appeals from the district court's rulings dissolving his marriage to Rachel Blum, which granted the parties joint physical care of their two boys. He argues the court should not have required the children to attend the Harlan schools. Rachel cross-appeals, asserting the court should have awarded her physical care of their children. We affirm the award of joint physical care, but modify the decision of the district court instructing that the boys attend school in the Harlan school district. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Kevin and Rachel were married in September 2006. They have two

children: Z.B. (born in 2003), and A.B. (born in 2007). The parties separated in September 2009, when Rachel moved to Marne to live with her parents, while Kevin stayed in the family home in Manilla. A temporary order was entered in October 2009, granting Kevin and Rachel joint physical care of the boys, alternating their care on a week-to-week basis with the proviso that the boys remain in their current school and daycare in Irwin, which was in the IKM Manning school district. In January 2010, Rachel secured an apartment in

Harlan, as she was employed in Harlan as a certified nursing assistant. Kevin was employed at Farmland Foods in Denison. After a trial in April 2010, the court granted Kevin and Rachel joint legal custody of the parties' two children, and ordered they "continue to share primary physical care and control of the boys as established by the Court's temporary order." However, the court included in the decree that the older boy "shall attend school in the Harlan Community School District." As to the younger boy, the

3 court ordered that he be enrolled in daycare "in or near the community where the parent who has him during his or her parenting week resides," but when he begins pre-school, he too "shall attend school in the Harlan Community School District." Kevin appeals the portion of the decree mandating the school the

children must attend. Rachel cross-appeals, asserting the court should have granted her physical care of the children. II. Standard of Review We review custody orders de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. However, the district court had the advantage of listening to and observing the parties and witnesses. In re Marriage of Zabecki, 389 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa 1986).

Consequently, we give weight to the factual findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006). Our overriding consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 235 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). III. Joint Physical Care We first address Rachel's contention that she should be awarded physical care of the children. She asserts joint physical care is not in the children's best interests, as it requires considerable travel for the children each day when they are in her care, time which could be better utilized. She also claims that she and Kevin have too many conflicts in their relationship to make joint physical care an effective arrangement. Kevin responds that the court was correct in awarding joint physical care, and while he and Rachel may have had disagreements during

4 the dissolution process, they have demonstrated the ability to work together for the sake of the children. In child custody cases the first and governing consideration is the best interests of the children. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RACHEL LYNNE BLUM AND KEVIN JAMES BLUM Upon the Petition o

Iowa Law