Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-879 / 11-0978 Filed December 21, 2011

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARAH JANE POHL AND TRENTON JOHN POHL Upon the Petition of SARAH JANE POHL, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning TRENTON JOHN POHL, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.

Appeal from the child custody provision of the decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED.

Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler & Anderson, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant. Stephen M. Terrill of Terrill, Richardson, Hostetter & Madson Law Offices, Ames, for appellee.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., Eisenhauer, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2011).

2

MAHAN, S.J. Trenton (Trent) Pohl appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Sarah Pohl, contending the court erred in not placing the children in his "s ole physical care."1 We affirm. I. Background. The parties began dating in 1998 when Trent was in high school and Sarah was in college. After Trent's graduation in 1999, the couple began Trent and Sarah married in

cohabiting in what became the marital home.

September of 2001. They purchased the home from Sarah's mother in 2002. The parties have two minor children, Taryn, born in February of 2008, and Sydney, born in January of 2010. Sarah filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in April of 2010. Trent filed his answer in August. The parties continued to live together in the family home, but conflict increased. In November of 2010, Sarah requested temporary custody of the children and possession of the marital home. Trent resisted and sought temporary custody of the children. In December, the court granted joint legal custody and temporary shared physical care of the children, with the parents having alternating four-day periods caring for the children in the home. The four-day rotation increased tensions in the family to the point that at the time of trial, the court noted "there was virtually no civil co mmunication between the parties" and shared physical care was not a viable option.

1

Possession of the marital home was raised as an issue on appeal, but the parties agree it is moot. We do not address it.

3

After a three-day trial, the court issued its "judgment" dissolving the marriage, dividing the marital property and debts, giving the parties joint legal custody of the children, placing the children in Sarah's physical care in the family home, and setting Trent's child support obligation and visitation. Tre nt appeals. II. Scope and Standards of Review. We review dissolutions of marriage de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Veit, 797 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2011). Although we decide the issues raised on appeal anew, we give weight to the trial court's factual findings, especially with respect to the credibility of the witnesses. In re Marriage of

Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Iowa 2003). "Precedent is of little value as our determination must depend on the facts of the particular case." In re Marriage of White, 537 N.W.2d 744, 746 (Iowa 1995). We base our decision primarily on the particular circumstances of the parties before us. In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983). III. Physical Care of the Children. Trent contends the district court erred in placing the children in Sarah's physical care instead of his. 1. Credibility. He first argues the court's credibility assessment was faulty because Sarah's untimely response to discovery "clouded the district court's evaluation of the case." Trent asserts the record does not support the court's credibility determination, pointing to how Sarah's demeanor differed between direct and cross-examination.

4

The district court made explicit, detailed credibility findings. We generally give considerable deference to the district court's credibility determinations because the court has a firsthand opportunity to hear the evidence and view the witnesses. In re Marriage of Brown, 487 N.W.2d 331, 332 (Iowa 1992). In this case, the court heard hours of testimony from both parties and had ample time to form an opinion concerning the credibility of each witness. Trent argues that Sarah's demeanor differed between direct examination and cross -examination. Having read the entire transcript, not just the substantial excerpts included in the appendix, we can observe that both Trent and Sarah differed in how they responded to direct examination and cross-examination. Both tended to give short, sometimes evasive, not always consistent answers on cross-examination. But we have only the printed record of what was said as a basis for evaluating the parties' credibility. Even with just the printed record, we fully agree with the district court's determination that Sarah is more credible than Tre nt. Given the district court's opportunity to watch and listen to the parties, in addition to considering what they said, we give weight to its determination Trent was not as credible as Sarah. 2. Best Interests. Trent next asserts the court's decision to place the children in Sarah's physical care rather than his is not in their best interests. He characterizes Sarah as "distant and disinterested in caring for them" in contrast to his world "revolv[ing] around them." The court placed the children in the joint legal custody of Trent and Sarah. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARAH JANE POHL AND TRENTON JOHN POHL Upon the Petition of

Iowa Law