In Re the Marriage of Melanie Lee Doyle and Daniel Brien Doyle Upon the Petition of Melanie Lee Doyle, and Concerning Daniel Brien Doyle

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-2224
Filed November 23, 2016
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELANIE LEE DOYLE
AND DANIEL BRIEN DOYLE
Upon the Petition of
MELANIE LEE DOYLE,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
DANIEL BRIEN DOYLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland,
Judge.
Daniel Doyle appeals the physical-care and child-support provisions of the
decree dissolving his marriage to Melanie Doyle. AFFIRMED.
Kodi A. Brotherson of Becker & Brotherson Law Offices, Sac City, for
appellant.
Gary J. Shea of Gary J. Shea Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
Daniel Doyle appeals the physical-care and child-support provisions of the
district court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Melanie Doyle. Daniel and
Melanie were married in September 2002. They have two minor children.
On appeal, Daniel argues the district court should have awarded the
parties shared physical care of their children. He also asserts, should we modify
the award of physical care, the parties’ child-support obligations should be
recalculated consistent with a shared-care arrangement.
After a three-day trial, the court entered a decree dissolving the parties’
marriage. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their children and
granted Melanie physical care with extraordinary visitation to Daniel. 1 The court
also ordered Daniel to pay Melanie $542.88 per month in child support.
The district court considered Daniel’s request to award the parties joint
physical care of their children and determined, under the unique circumstances
of this case, that a joint physical-care arrangement was not in the children’s best
interests. Specifically, the court found “[t]he regular and substantial degree of
conflict between the parties” and “[t]he extent of mutual distrust . . . disfavor[ed] a
shared-care arrangement.”
It is obvious on our review of the record that both parties are capable of
parenting their children and love them very much. However, the district court
found Melanie had been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their lives
and the children were happy and thriving in her care. We find no reason to
1
“Extraordinary visitation” is defined as visitation that “exceeds 127 days per year.”
Iowa Ct. R. 9.9.
3
disagree with the district court’s determination that physical care of the children
with Melanie is in their best interests.
Upon our de novo review of the record, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.907, along
with a careful study of the briefs and the district court’s ruling, 2 we conclude the
findings of fact and credibility determinations in the district court’s lengthy and
thorough ruling correctly address the physical-care and child-support issues
Daniel raises. Giving deference to those credibility findings, see Iowa R. App. P.
6.904(3)(g), and having determined the district court correctly applied the
governing legal and equitable principles, we approve of the reasons and
conclusions of the opinion and conclude a full opinion of this court would not
augment or clarify existing case law. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum
opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e). We decline to award
either party appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.
2
Included in our review is our decision in a related appeal in which our court reversed
the district court’s order extending a final no-contact order between the parties. See
Doyle v. Doyle, No. 13-0753, 2013 WL 6405474, at *1–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013).