IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TIMOTHY WAYNE SCHUMACHER AND MARY SCHUMACHER Upon the Petition of TIMOTHY WAYNE SCHUMACHER, Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, And Concerning MARY SCHUMACHER, Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Nancy L.
former husband appeals a dissolution decree granting his
former wife physical care of their children; the former wife
cross-appeals the denial of spousal support and trial
attorney fees. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.
B. Howie of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C.,
West Des Moines, for appellant.
Matthew G. Sease of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, for
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
Schumacher appeals the physical care provision of the decree
that dissolved his marriage to Mary Schumacher. Timothy
claims the district court should not have granted Mary
physical care of the children and the court's rationale
for doing so was inconsistent with the record. Mary claims
the district court abused its discretion in denying her
request for spousal support and trial attorney fees.
Background Facts and Proceedings
and Mary were married in 2007. The parties are the parents of
three children, born 2007, 2010, and 2012. Mary's child
from a prior marriage, born in 2001, also lives in the
6, 2015, while Timothy was out of town on business, Mary
filed a petition for relief from domestic abuse, alleging
Timothy had threatened her and she feared for her safety. On
the same day, a temporary protective order was issued that
restrained Timothy from any contact with Mary or the
children. On May 15, Timothy filed a petition to dissolve the
marriage, seeking joint legal custody and physical care of
8, a contested hearing was held on the petition for relief
from domestic abuse. The court concluded Timothy had not
committed a criminal assault, determined he no longer posed a
threat to Mary, and dismissed the petition. Immediately
following the hearing, the court heard arguments regarding
temporary matters in the dissolution action. The court
resolved the temporary matters hearing by granting temporary
joint legal custody to both parties and placing the children
in the physical care of Mary.
on the dissolution matter occurred over four days in April
2016. On December 22, the district court issued a forty-page
written ruling. In addressing the issue of physical care, the
court determined the parties were not well-suited for shared
physical care and placed the children in the physical care of
Mary. In evaluating Mary's request for spousal support,
the court determined Mary had the ability to support herself
at the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage
and spousal support was not warranted. Finally, the court
denied Mary's request for attorney fees.
appeals the court's physical care determination; Mary
cross-appeals from the court's denial of spousal-support
and trial attorney fees and requests appellate attorney fees.
Scope and ...