In Re the Marriage of Laronna Lea Orr and David Wayne Orr Upon the Petition of Laronna Lea Orr, and Concerning David Wayne Orr
16-1772
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 17, 2017Background
- David and LaRonna Orr divorced after marriage; two children born in 2003 and 2005.
- District court awarded joint legal custody, LaRonna physical care, and David liberal visitation; David appealed physical-care and summer-visitation provisions.
- Parties lived in Marion during marriage; after separation LaRonna relocated to Hubbard (~2 hours from Marion) for teaching positions; David remained in Marion and works as a banker with longer hours/travel.
- I.O. has special-education needs (IEP/Section 504); LaRonna is a special-education teacher and better positioned to address those needs.
- Trial court excluded some evidence by objection rulings; appellate review is de novo but with deference to district court.
Issues
| Issue | Orr (Appellant) Argument | LaRonna (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which parent should have physical care of the children? | David argued he should be primary caretaker to provide stability (children remain in family home, same schools). | LaRonna argued she should be primary given historical caregiving, synchronized work schedule, and special-education expertise for I.O. | Physical care awarded to LaRonna: factors (primary caregiver, work schedule, special-ed qualifications, distance making joint care impracticable) favor her. |
| Is joint physical care appropriate? | David favored more balanced parenting time; proposed joint or his primary care. | LaRonna maintained joint care impracticable due to geographic distance. | Joint physical care impracticable because of ~2-hour distance; court must select single primary caretaker. |
| Should summer "week-on, week-off" schedule be changed to give David an extra week? | David sought modified summer schedule (additional week) to allow extended vacations and balance parenting time. | LaRonna opposed, citing children’s summer extracurriculars and disruption. | Summer schedule left intact; current arrangement deemed equitable and in children’s best interests. |
| Should appellate attorney fees be awarded to LaRonna? | N/A (David appellant) | LaRonna requested appellate fees. | Denied; appellate fees discretionary and not warranted after weighing needs, ability to pay, and merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors and approximation principle guiding custody/physical-care determinations)
- In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006) (de novo review in dissolution matters tried in equity)
- In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (work schedules and caregiver availability relevant to primary-care awards)
- In re Marriage of Daniels, 568 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (not all custody factors carry equal weight)
- McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (best-interests standard aims for child’s healthy mental, physical, and social maturity)
- In re Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 2015) (comparison of school districts does not alone dictate residence for children)
- In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (appellate attorney fees in dissolution are discretionary)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors for awarding attorney fees on appeal)