Pеtitioner-appellant Karen M. Weiss appeals and respondent-appellee Jerry D. Weiss cross-appeals challenging the economic provision the trial court made in their dissolution decree. We affirm.
Karen and Jerry are in their mid-forties. They were married in 1966. They had two daughters, one a graduate of the University of Iowa who is an adult, and the second child, Kristin, was seventeen years old at the time of trial and a senior in high school.
Karen is a certified laboratory technician and has, in addition, earned sixty hours of college credit. She is employable as a technician at a salary of approximately $20,000 a year. However, Karen рlans to earn a B.A. degree from Briar Cliff College in Sioux City and then obtain an M.A. degree from the University of Nebraska in Omaha. Upon completing this education, she intends to get a job as a social worker with pay comparаble to what she could earn as a laboratory technician. Karen has been employed outside the home at a variety of jobs throughout the marriage. At the time of trial, Karen was drawing unemployment insurance. She аllegedly suffers mental problems because of abuse she received as a child. Karen contends she needs continued psychiatric care at a cost for treatment and transportation of over $150 weekly. Shе also has been treated for cancerous bladder tumors and requires continual
Jerry has an M.A. degree. He obtained his M.A. degree and his B.A. degree during the marriage. Jerry works full time in the Extension Service for Iowa State University. Jerry worked full time while getting his education except for a period of about one and one-half years when he worked twenty tо thirty hours a week.
Jerry has a monthly wage before tax deductions of $3,500. Jerry is able to purchase dental and medical insurance for $107 monthly.
Net equities of about $70,000 accumulated by the parties during marriage were divided equally between the parties. Karen had set off to her a one-sixth remainder interest subject to her 80-year-old mother’s life estate in eighty acres of Webster County farmland, and Jerry had set off to him an undivided one-fourth interest in rental prоperty in Fort Dodge. The net result of the property division is that Karen, with her gifted and inherited property, received about $60,000, and Jerry, with his inherited and gifted property received about $46,000. Neither party challenges the property division.
Karen was awarded alimony of $500 a month until August 1992 and $350 a month for thirty-six months thereafter. The alimony was not awarded in the original decree, but was awarded in a supplemental decree entered following the filing of a 179(b) motion.
Karen also was ordered to pay child support of $50 a month for the younger daughter, Kristin, who was placed in her father’s physical care.
Karen first contends the alimony award was not adequate. Karen’s position is the treatment she needs because of abuse as a child; the fact she can only purchase health insurance under Jerry’s contract for thirty-six months; the fact she wants to obtain a B.A. degree and M.A. degree; the fact Jerry оbtained education during the marriage; and the fact Jerry’s income is in excess of hers, are factors that make the alimony award unjustified.
Karen also claims Jerry has overstated his living expenses, and Jerry contends Karen has overstated her living expenses. We have given little consideration to each parties’ claimed living expenses. In assessing alimony awards, we look primarily at the available income and the parties’ needs, not what they choose to spend for living expenses. We do, however, give special consideration to the approximately $150 a week Karen incurs for weekly psychotherapy as it is not a usual expense.
Jеrry argues Karen refuses to obtain employment that is available to her, rather, she is seeking to embark on further education. He also advances she has an extended history of involvement with many counselors but has no medical or mental incapacity that precludes her from being employed. He contends she could, with minimal effort, be self-sufficient and has training in areas where jobs are available. Jerry advances Karen will not take jobs as a clinical laboratory assistant despite being qualified to do so, nor will she take employment as a sign language interpreter when she is trained and experienced in that area. Jerry says the evidence shows Karen’s present earning capacity is greater than her earning capacity would be in the future with a Master’s degree.
Jerry also points out that following the parties’ separation, he provided educational еxpenses for the older daughter at the University of Iowa and used a portion of his inheritance for this purpose. Jerry says Karen has not provided for either child’s education or support since the separation.
Spousal support is provided for under Iowa Code section 598.21(3). Whether spousal support is justified is dependent on the facts of each case.
See In re Marriage of Fleener,
In assessing Karen’s claim we look at all the factors of section 598.21(3). We give particular consideration to the education the parties received during marriage.
See In re Marriage of Francis,
Karen during the marriage has obtained education and has held emplоyment outside the home. She has accumulated F.I.C.A. coverage in her own right, though her contributions have been less than Jerry’s, and he will have greater retirement benefits.
See In re Marriage of Miller,
Karen emphasizes she should have alimony because she wishes education to make a career change and should have rehabilitative alimony. The trial court rejected Karen’s claim for rehabilitative alimony: The trial court found Karen is trained and certified as a lаboratory assistant and the demand for persons with her training are greater than the supply and, with on-the-job training, Karen could in six months be making as much or more money than she would if she completes the education she wants Jerry to help her obtain. In rejecting Karen’s claim for rehabilitative alimony, the trial court also gave higher priority to Kristin’s education than it did to Karen’s desire for education in a different field.
The question is, does a desire to change careers justify awarding rehabilitative alimony w'here there is no showing the additional education will result in more lucrative employment while there is evidence the applicant can find work in her current profession аnd is capable of practicing her current profession. An award of rehabilitative alimony is not justified under this record. We note, too, Karen has money from her share of the property division to finance her educаtion.
See In re Marriage of Schissel,
The alimony award made by the trial court is equitable and it is affirmed. On cross-appeal Jerry contends the trial court improperly enlarged and amended its decree to award alimony in a supplemental decree and failed to provide adequate reasons for awarding the alimony. Because on our de novo review we agree with the trial court’s ultimate decision on the alimony issue, we find it unnecessary to address Jerry’s challenge to the procedure the trial court followed in awarding alimony. The controlling issue on appeal is the correctness of the award.
See In re Marriage of Miller,
Karen’s next contention is she should not be required to pay child support. The trial court ordered Karen to pay child support for Kristin in the amount of $50 per month as long as Kristin qualifies as a student under Iowa Code section 598.1(2) with the support terminating when Kristin obtains her college degree or with the payment due July 1996, whichever is sooner.
Considering Karen’s earning potential of $20,000 annually, when coupled with the alimony Karen is to receive, the award of child support for her seventeen-year-old daughter, Kristin, was very modest. Both parents hаve an obligation to support their children, not necessarily equally but in accordance with their ability to pay.
Additionally, section 598.1(2) imposes an obligation on divorced parents toward their adult offspring to support them while they are attending college as long as they are not married and have not yet reached their twenty-second birthday.
See In re Marriage of Lieberman,
We also note, as does the trial court, an important responsibility for both parents at present is that their younger daughter, a honor student, in an Iowa high school be assisted in obtaining her college education. This is an оbligation of both her mother and her father. While the trial court did not impose an obligation for college expenses on Jerry, he paid most of the college expenses of the older daughter, even dipping into his inhеritance to do so. Jerry was named Kristin’s custodial parent, and the record would support a finding he intends to pay college expenses for Kristin as he did for her older sister. We recognize the contribution Karen is required to make toward Kristin’s college education is very modest. We recognize, as did the trial court, Karen has an obligation to assist her daughter in obtaining an education and her daughter’s need for higher education takes precedence over Karen’s desire to obtain further education to change jobs. We treat Karen no differently than we would treat Jerry if he were seeking more education to change jobs. There are times in life when a child’s needs must take precedence over parents’ desires. We affirm the child support award.
Each party shall be responsible for his or her own attorney fees. Costs on appeal are taxed one-half to each party.
AFFIRMED.