In Re Seay

746 N.W.2d 833 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

M and F were never married, but had three children. F filed a petition to determine custody arrangement, child support, and liability for resulting court costs. The parties agreed that the court should award the parties joint legal custody of the children. The parties disagreed on the issues of physical care, child support, and apportionment of court costs and fees. The district court order 'awarded joint physical care' of the children to M and F. The district court order further established a physical care schedule under which the parties alternated 'physical care' on weekends and most holidays and vacations. The court provided that F would have 'physical care' from 6:00 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays until the beginning of school on Wednesdays and Fridays respectively. Under the schedule, the children would reside with F for 158 days and with M for 206 days. The district court calculated that under the guidelines, F's child support obligation for the three children was $331 per month. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 9.9, the district court then reduced F's child support obligation by 25 percent as a result of extraordinary visitation. As a result, the district court ordered that F pay child support of $248 per month. F appealed. Under the offset approach, the child support that would be required of each party is calculated as if they were a noncustodial parent. Child support is determined by calculating the difference between these two amounts. M cross-appealed. She claimed that the district court should have reduced F's child support obligation by only 20 percent because F's court-ordered visitation was more than 148 days but less than 167 days per year. M also contended that F's support obligation should be increased because the court awarded two children to F as dependents for tax purposes and only one to M. She also sought an award of attorneys' fees. The court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the district court. F appealed.