 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Horsman3/13/2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Curnan, Judge.
Randall Horsman appeals the visitation and property division provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Randall Horsman, Sr. appeals from the visitation and property distribution provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He also claims the trial court should not have taken judicial notice of a trial information filed against him in connection with an incident which occurred just before trial. We affirm as modified.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
Randall and Carrie Horsman were married in 1992. The parties have three children: Randall, born in March 1994; Carly, born in November 1996; and Wade, born in July 1998. Randall is forty-one years of age and Carrie is thirty-one.
The parties separated in February of 2000, and Carrie filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. Because they were unable to reach agreement concerning Randall's visitation and the division of their property and debts, their case was tried to the court in November 2000. At the time of trial, Randall was in jail because of pending criminal charges.
Following trial, the district court awarded custody of the parties' children to Carrie. The court granted Randall no visitation rights other than those Carrie voluntarily made available to him. Randall was ordered to pay child support of $100 per month. The court awarded Carrie the bulk of the parties' marital assets. In lieu of a cash distribution from Carrie, Randall was given a credit of $12,000 against his future child support obligation.
Randall appeals. He contends the trial court should have awarded him visitation rights with his minor children subject to restrictions. He also contends the court's division of marital assets was inequitable. Finally, he contends the trial court improperly considered the minutes of testimony contained in a criminal file that detailed charges filed against him arising out of an incident that occurred November 2, 2000.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
Our review of this equitable matter is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. This standard requires us to examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Ruter, 564 N.W.2d 849, 851 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). We recognize the value of listening to and observing the parties and their witnesses. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g). We accord the trial court considerable latitude in resolving disputed claims and will disturb a ruling "only when there has been a failure to do equity." In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996).
III. VISITATION.
In its decree the trial court ordered that, "respondent is granted no visitation rights other than what petitioner voluntarily makes available to him." Randall argues the court should have found he was entitled to reasonable visitation rights with the children, subject to appropriate restrictions, including supervision of any visitation ordered.
In establishing visitation rights, our governing consideration is the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Generally, liberal visitation rights are in the children's best interests. Id. Iowa Code section 598.41(1) provides in pertinent part:
The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest 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 . . . Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|