IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA LYNN ALBERTSEN AND MARK DUANE ALBERTSEN Upon the Petition of CYNTHIA LYNN ALBERTSEN, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning MARK DUANE ALBERTSEN, Respondent-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Christopher L.
Albertsen appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to
Mark Albertsen. AFFIRMED.
S. Kaplan and C. Aron Vaughn of Kaplan & Frese, L.L.P.,
Marshalltown, for appellant.
L. Weber and Erich D. Priebe of Dutton, Braun, Staack &
Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellee.
by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
(Cindy) and Mark Albertsen married in 2000 and divorced
sixteen years later. Cindy appeals the provisions of a
dissolution decree (1) granting Mark physical care of the
children and (2) extending property equalization payments
over eighty months.
and Mark had two children, born in 2003 and 2006. Mark was an
educator. He grew up in Dysart, Iowa, and became a principal
there in 2005. He remained in Dysart at the time of trial.
had a degree in exercise science. After the children were
born, she testified to becoming a "stay-at-home
mom." In time, she took on part-time coaching positions.
2013, Cindy enrolled in a graduate sports management program.
The program required some travel to the Illinois campus and a
three-month internship, which she completed in Alabama. Mark
served as primary caretaker of the children while she was in
graduated in a year and a half. She applied for ninety-six
career-related jobs around the country, including in Iowa.
She was not hired within the State, and, in mid-2014, she
accepted a temporary position with the Oakland Raiders in
California. Later the same year, the Raiders hired her full
time. Cindy expected Mark and the children to move to
California at the end of the school year but later learned
Mark signed a contract with the Dysart school system for the
petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage. The district
court granted Mark temporary physical care of the children
and, following trial, made that arrangement permanent.
appeal, Cindy contends "the best interest of the
children dictates that they be placed in [her] primary
care." See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2015)
(setting forth factors for consideration in determining what
custody arrangement is in the best interest of the child);
In re Marriage of Peake, No. 08-0131, 2009 WL 138778
at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2009) (considering factors in
primary physical care determination); see also In re
Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007)
("Although Iowa Code section 598.41(3) does not directly
apply to physical care decisions, we have held that
the factors listed here as well as other facts and
circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint
physical care is in the best interest of the child.").
She asserts her decision to relocate to California was not
"unilateral" and the district court failed to
consider the surrounding circumstances, including her
long-time role as primary caretaker. See In re Marriage
of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Iowa 1983) (noting in
a modification action, courts consider surrounding
circumstances of parental relocation, including "the
reason for ...