Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 6-138 / 05-1285 Filed April 26, 2006

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TERI ANN LAWYER And STEVEN VERNE LAWYER Upon the Petition of TERI ANN LAWYER, n/k/a TERI ANN ISACSON, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, And Concerning STEVEN VERNE LAWYER, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Martha L. Mertz, Judge.

The parties appeal and cross-appeal the order of the district court denying their respective petitions to modify certain provisions of the decree, but modifying visitation. AFFIRMED.

Andrew B. Howie of Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Leslie Babich and Kodi A. Petersen of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

2 VOGEL, P.J. Steven Lawyer appeals, and Teri Isacson cross-appeals, from the district court's order denying modification of the custody or child support provisions of their dissolution decree, but finding a significant change in circumstances requiring modification of the visitation provisions. We affirm. Steven and Teri's marriage was dissolved in 1998, incorporating the terms of a stipulation of the parties. They were given joint legal custody of their twoyear-old son Matthew with Teri having physical care and Steven having reasonable and liberal visitation. Steven agreed to pay child support of $700 per month, which exceeded the amount required by the child support guidelines. In March 2004, Steven filed a petition to modify the decree, requesting the court grant physical care of Matthew to him due to Teri's move to Florida. Teri resisted and petitioned the court to increase Steven's child support obligation. Following what appears to be a thorough presentation of the evidence advancing each party's position, the district court denied each party's modification request except for setting forth a default visitation schedule and allocating Matthew's travel expenses. The court also ordered the parties to pay their own attorney's fees and pay the court costs equally. Steven appeals the court's denial of

modification of physical care, and Teri cross-appeals the court's denial of an increase in Steven's child support obligation, denial of trial attorney fees, and allocation of courts costs. She also seeks appellate attorney fees and costs. Scope of Review. We review modification rulings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4 In re Marriage of Sojka, 611 N.W.2d 503, 504 (Iowa 2000). Although not bound by the district court's factual findings, we give them weight, especially

3 when assessing the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). A party who seeks a modification of a dissolution decree must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the decree or its last modification. In re

Marriage of Kupferschmidt, 705 N.W.2d 327, 331 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005). The party seeking a change in custody must also prove he or she has an ability to minister more effectively to the child's well-being. In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 235 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). This heavy burden "stems from the

principle that once custody of a child has been fixed it should be disturbed only for the most cogent reasons." N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983)). Burden of Proof. Steven asserts that prior to Teri's move to Florida, the parties enjoyed a de facto shared physical care of Matthew. Because of this, Steven contends the district court erred by treating the issue as to whether physical care should be changed from one parent to the other, thereby requiring Steven to prove he could minister more effectively to Matthew's needs. Steven claims that he and Teri were on "equal footing" and the district court should have only sorted out with which parent Matthew should "remain." While Teri admits that Steven cared for Matthew six out of fourteen nights for several years, we find no basis for converting a very liberal visitation or even informal shared care arrangement into a trap for the unwary for a later modification action. See Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Frederici, 338

generally In re Marriage of Jacobo, 526 N.W.2d 859, 867 (Iowa 1995) (recognizing the strong public policy precluding enforcement of private agreements in a child support context, as courts are loath to sort through

4 numberless disputed claims of undocumented private agreements concerning support obligations because a matter so important should be clearly fixed and authorized by court order); In re Marriage of Von Glan, 525 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (noting the enforceability of extra-judicial agreements made by the parties in dissolution proceedings is generally dependent on acceptance or approval by the court). One of the legislature's stated statutory goals in

dissolution cases is to assure a child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after they have dissolved their marriage. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TERI ANN LAWYER And STEVEN VERNE LAWYER Upon the Petition

Iowa Law