In re the Marriage of Grchan ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-2025
Filed August 21, 2019
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KRISTEN GRCHAN
AND MICHAEL GRCHAN
Upon the Petition of
KRISTEN GRCHAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
MICHAEL GRCHAN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen,
Judge.
Kristen Grchan appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Michael
Grchan. AFFIRMED.
JohnPatrick Brown III of Winstein, Kavensky & Cunningham, LLC, Rock
Island, Illinois, for appellant.
Garth M. Carlson of Gomez May, LLP, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Michael and Kristen Grchan married in 2011 and divorced in 2018. The
district court granted the parents joint physical care of their two children, born in
2013 and 2016. On appeal, Kristen contends the court should have granted her
physical care.
“Any consideration of joint physical care . . . must . . . be based on Iowa’s
traditional and statutorily required child custody standard—the best interest of the
child.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007) (citing Iowa
Code § 598.41(5)(a) [(2018)]). “[T]he factors listed [in section 598.41(3)] as well
as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint physical
care is in the best interest of the child.” Id. at 696.
The district court observed,
The evidence in this case demonstrated clearly that both parties are
very good parents who deeply love their children and provide
excellent care. Neither put forth convincing evidence that their
parenting skills are better . . . . Each party had rather mild and
insignificant criticisms of the other, and that is to their credit.
In its verbal findings following trial, the court found “both parties [were] heavily
involved in providing for the primary care of the children”; “the evidence indicate[d]
strongly that they communicate and show mutual respect”; and they exchanged all
the information they needed to “to successfully co-parent.” The court stated,
“There was absolutely [no] history that either parent has run down, criticized the
other, [or] insulted the other” and “the degree of conflict between the parties [was]
minimal.” In particular, the court said there was “absolutely no disagreement about
food, shelter, education, moral issues or discipline” and no “evidence whatsoever
that” the parents disagreed “as to their general approach to daily matters.” Indeed,
3
the court noted, the parents “continued to live together” after the dissolution petition
was filed and “even went on vacation together as a family after the divorce was on
file.” The record fully supports the district court’s findings.
Contrary to Kristen’s assertion that she, rather than Michael, “perform[ed]
the vast majority of the parenting tasks,” her sister testified “they both contributed”
and they “kept co-parenting” while the dissolution action was pending. Kristen’s
father similarly stated “they were both involved,” with Michael “giving the kids
baths” and “cook[ing] supper.” Notably, both parents worked for the same
employer and both testified to having flexible schedules that allowed for active
parenting.
Kristen’s assertion that she would “provide[] a more structured and stable
environment” is equally unpersuasive. After living with Kristen for a period of time
following her filing of the dissolution petition, Michael moved to his mother’s
condominium. Later, he rented an Illinois apartment that Kristen conceded was
just a fifteen to twenty minute drive away from her Bettendorf apartment. Despite
the proximity, Michael expressed a willingness to move even closer. With the older
child slated to begin kindergarten, he voiced no objection to having the child attend
a Bettendorf, Iowa school as Kristen requested. He stated, “[I]t doesn’t matter
where she goes to school just as long as we’re there for her.” He insisted he “just
want[s] what’s best for [his] kids.”
Nor does the record establish that Michael was unable to manage “both
[girls] together,” as Kristen contends. Both parents candidly admitted parenting
the young children could be overwhelming at times. At the same time, Kristen
conceded Michael cared for the children without incident while she was on vacation
4
for several days. In addition, both parents had family members in the area to assist
as needed.
We turn to Kristen’s contention that the parents had “trouble communicating
effectively.” Although the parents had different communication styles, there is no
evidence to suggest that Michael purposely withheld information about the
children. At worst, he declined to take “the lead” on day-to-day decisions.
Nonetheless, he participated in the “majority” or “all” of the decisions. In the district
court’s words, “These are obviously people that can get along.”
On our de novo review, we conclude the district court acted equitably in
granting the parents joint physical care of the children. In our view, “[t]his is a
textbook case for joint physical care.” See Eisener v. Cochran, No. 12-1647, 2013
WL 3871088, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2013).
The only remaining issue relates to the parenting schedule. The district
court stated Michael would have the children every Monday and Wednesday
overnight and every other weekend and Kristen would have the children every
Tuesday and Thursday overnight and every other weekend. Kristen argues the
transfer schedule will prove unworkable as the children get older. We have no way
of knowing. What we do know is that Kristen rejected Michael’s alternate “week
on–week off” proposal. Given both parents’ willingness to accommodate each
other, we affirm the arrangement ordered by the district court.
AFFIRMED.