In Re Marriage Of Hansen

Facts

Lyle (H) and Delores (W) were married in 1987. The marriage lasted approximately eighteen years. At the time of trial, H was forty-five years of age and W was forty-six. There were two children: Miranda, who was twelve years old at the time of the district court proceedings, and Ethan, who was eight. W was the primary caregiver. H was the main breadwinner. When the children were in infancy, W opened a daycare center in their home. Later, when family finances became an issue, she held full-time employment outside the home. After the parties' separation, H has become more involved in the lives of the children. There was serious marital stress. There were arguments, excessive consumption of alcohol, allegations of infidelity and sexual misconduct, and allegations of domestic abuse. Some of this strife occurred in front of the children. The parties appear to have different approaches to child rearing. W wants the children to be active in the Methodist church and other extracurricular activities. H did not encourage these kinds of activities. H claims to have been the disciplinarian in the marital home. H believed that discipline needed to be more severe than W was willing to impose. H acknowledged that, at times, he is overprotective. H expressed concern that W will expose their children to her family, which he finds highly dysfunctional. Delores testified that her father abused her as a child, but they have reconciled sufficiently to maintain an ongoing relationship. Lyle's concern, however, extends beyond the father, as other members of Delores' family have been convicted of child endangerment and drug offenses. Delores counters that when the children visit her family, it is always under her supervision. H and W worked out the scheduling issues inherent in a joint physical care arrangement. There was not always agreement, however, on matters related to the children. For instance, when one child experienced unexpected academic difficulties, W believed professional counseling would be of help. H disagreed, once again stating that he did not believe in professional counseling. W acquiesced, and counseling was not obtained. On another occasion, the kids called their mother and asked to be picked up because H was angry that they had not cleaned their rooms, and had slammed the kitchen door, breaking its glass pane. While much of the record, in this case, is unattractive, it is clear that both H and W love their children. H was earning $46,300 per year as a detective for the City of Washington Police Department. W was employed as a bank teller, earning $18,900 per year. W has only a high school education and little prospect in Washington, Iowa, for substantial increase in income. The marital residence was worth $112,000. The parties accumulated considerable debt, at one time rising to as much as $26,000 on numerous credit cards. They developed a plan to reduce it. The parties sold their boat and hot tub, and H took an additional job at Hy-Vee. W closed the daycare and sought outside employment. The debt load was substantially reduced by the time of trial. H and W also borrowed money from W's parents during their marriage. H borrowed money from his sister, after the separation. At the time of trial, the loans remained unpaid in the amount of $6,500 and $7,391 respectively. The district court granted temporary physical care and legal custody to both parents. The district court granted 'joint legal custody' and 'joint physical care' of the minor children to H and W. The court order established a schedule where 'physical care' would alternate for six-month periods with liberal visitation for the spouse not currently having physical care. The court threatened any party who failed to cooperate with modification of the decree. This appeal resulted over the joint physical care. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.