No. 4-465 / 03-1917.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 11, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Todd A. Geer, Judge.
Mark Louviere appeals from the child support and visitation provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree. AFFIRMED ASMODIFIED.
David Zellhoefer of Zellhoefer Law Offices, Waterloo, for appellant.
David Correll of Correll Sheerer, Cedar Falls, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, and Zimmer, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Respondent Mark Louviere appeals from the child support and visitation provisions of a dissolution decree dissolving his marriage to Heidi Louviere. He claims the district court erred in setting the amount of child support and by failing to award him additional visitation with his children. We affirm with some modification.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Mark and Heidi were married in 1996 after living together for approximately five years. The couple has two minor children, Benjamin, born in August 1997, and David, born in November 2000. The parties separated in the spring of 2002. Heidi filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in September 2002.
At the time of trial in July 2003, Mark was forty-six years old. Mark is a medical doctor. He has office hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays. In addition, he is on call on Tuesday evening and every eighth weekend. Heidi was thirty-seven years old at the time of trial. She is a college graduate and a licensed physician’s assistant. Heidi is currently employed part-time. She works on Monday and Wednesday mornings.
The issues litigated at trial were visitation, child support, property distribution, and spousal support. The district court dissolved the parties’ marriage by decree filed September 25, 2003. The court awarded Mark and Heidi joint custody of Benjamin and David, and placed primary physical care of the boys with Heidi. Mark was awarded visitation. The court found Mark’s gross income is $206,000 per year and concluded that Heidi has the capacity to earn $50,000 per year when she returns to full-time employment. In its decree, the court asked the parties to submit child support guidelines with a proposed supplemental order setting child support. The court ordered Mark to pay Heidi spousal support of $2,000 per month for thirty-six months and divided the parties’ assets and debts. Both parties filed post-trial motions to amend the decree which were ruled on by the district court. On October 30, 2003, the trial court entered a supplemental order requiring Mark to pay child support in the amount of $2,383 per month.
Mark appeals. He contends the district court erred in setting the amount of his child support obligation. He also contends the court should have awarded him additional visitation with his children.
II. Scope of Review
Our review of this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.41(6)(g). We recognize that “factual disputes which depend heavily on the credibility of witnesses are best resolved by the trial court which has a better opportunity to evaluate credibility than we do.” Maisel v. Gelhause, 416 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa Ct.App. 1987).
III. Child Support Issues
Mark claims he should have been given a $600 per month deduction instead of a $300 per month deduction for health insurance on the Child Support Guideline Worksheet submitted to the trial court. Mark’s brief on appeal does not refer to any testimony which indicates that Mark pays $600 per month for insurance and we find nothing in the record that supports this claim. We also note that Mark’s counsel approved the guideline worksheet submitted to the court by Heidi’s counsel, which listed a $300 deduction for health insurance. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
Mark also claims the court erred because it failed to reduce his monthly income, for child support computation purposes, by $2,000 per month in recognition of spousal support paid to Heidi. Deduction of alimony payments from monthly income for purposes of computation of child support is within the discretion of the trial court. In re Marriage of Lalone, 469 N.W.2d 695, 697
(Iowa 1991). The court may consider alimony in an attempt to do justice between the parties. Id.[1]
Under the court’s decree, Mark will pay Heidi $72,000 in alimony over a three-year period. Given the substantial amount of monthly alimony Mark pays, we conclude it would be inequitable not to deduct the alimony when calculating his net monthly income. Accordingly, we remand this case to allow the district court to deduct Mark’s alimony payments when calculating his net monthly income for child support purposes. Mark’s child support obligation should be recalculated when his obligation to pay alimony ends. Failure to do so would result in substantial injustice to the children. In re Marriage of Russell, 511 N.W.2d 890, 892 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
IV. Visitation
Mark was awarded significant visitation with his children, including: every other weekend, midweek for three and a half hours each Wednesday, alternating holidays, every Father’s Day, spring break every other year, half of Christmas break every year, and six weeks in the summer. Mark’s complaint on appeal concerns the length of mid-week visitation. The district court awarded Mark visitation every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. Mark argues the district court should have awarded him more visitation during the week, because of his work schedule.
Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) (2003) addresses the statutory goal of assuring children have the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.
The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interests of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child . . .
Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).
In determining Mark’s visitation, it is apparent that the trial court gave careful and thoughtful attention to all of the evidence presented. The trial court described the parties’ relationship as “volatile and disturbing.” Unfortunately, the record supports this assessment. Although both parties have demonstrated a lack of emotional stability during their marriage and these dissolution proceedings, the trial court concluded that Heidi “is the more stable of the two parents.” The court stated: “Mark is more unpredictable, volatile, and sarcastic. He has also demonstrated controlling behaviors.”
The trial court obviously believed that the specific visitation schedule it crafted would facilitate a predictable and stable routine for the children while serving their best interests. In rejecting Mark’s post-trial motion for an expansion of visitation, the trial court acknowledged that it might be appropriate to increase Mark’s visitation at some point in the future as the parties’ situation becomes less volatile, and the children mature and adjust to the separation of their parents. However, the court concluded that an expansion of the visitation schedule was not in the children’s interest at this time. We agree. We conclude the district court’s visitation schedule is equitable and reasonable under the circumstances of this case and that it serves the statutory goal of assuring both Benjamin and David “the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). Therefore, we affirm the visitation schedule without modification. Costs on appeal are taxed one half to each party.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.