*1 468 part, in “The mother of a IY. states This section wedlock, paternity whose out of child born juvenile M.G. contends the court acknowledged not and who has has not been finding in there clear and convinc erred custody of the child adopted, has sole been ing evidence L.B. could be returned orders otherwise.” unless the court reviewing After the record we dis home. previously raised this is- has never M.G. agree. Moreover, of the record our review sue. recognize We M.G. made advance acknowledged paternity of the indicates S.B. parenting ments in her skills and interaction proceedings Prior to the CINA child. daughter parenting with her as result clothing. provided her with

visited L.B. and however, has, classes she attended. She requested give him He also M.G. hearing, recognize perpetrated the CINA S.B. has failed the abuse of L.B. Since him affirmatively sought placement her with meeting It in her husband M.B. is essential complete responsibility for her and has taken parents recognize a child’s needs that himself to the care. He has submitted H.R.K., In re acknowledge abuse. jurisdiction, cooperative been with App.1988). Meaningful workers, parenting participated in case change recognition. cannot occur without this argu- classes. We find no merit M.G.’s Id. ment. juvenile The in conclud- was correct ing ongoing presence of M.B. in M.G.’s III. presents continuing danger life and home argues she was offered insuffi M.G. well-being. reported to L.B.’s M.G. has L.B., par to reunite her with cient services M.B. on several occasions abuse ticularly light palsy. cerebral of her She continually accept but has failed to assistance claims, following placement with L.B.’s S.B. or from the remove herself situation. M.G.’s toward all the services were directed S.B. prevents choice to remain with M.B. her record, however, does not The providing nurturing a safe environment per- 1992 case M.G.’sclaims. The December for L.B. find is and convinc- there clear manency plan supervised visi- recommended ing evidence L.B. could not be returned to classes, tation, anger parenting management permanency M.G.’s home and affirm the or- assistance, counseling abuse and domestic der. dispositional order also April M.G. The notes services should be to M.G. AFFIRMED. permanency plan. accordance the case with Family history/quarter- The Resources social

ly report par- enrolled in indicates M.G. was

enting classes until she was dismissed September

inadequate attendance. plan need for case likewise considered M.G.’s In re the MARRIAGE OF Gustave services. KRONE and Karen Denise Krone. nothing indicating There in the record is Upon the Petition of Rhett Gustave all or that the services were directed S.B. Krone, Appellant, returning custody did not consider outstanding if to M.G. she resolved the issues Concerning And Karen Denise bonding of domestic and lack of abuse Krone, Appellee. Rather, profes- L.B. the record reveals the repeatedly sionals in this case at- involved No. 94-751. tempted help these M.G. address issues. Appeals Court of of Iowa. M.G., however, assistance in refused their the area of domestic abuse. We conclude Feb. permanency order was the result of M.G.’s inability unwillingness or to address the issue home,

of domestic violence not a result inadequate services. *2 per month until 1993 and

per month thereafter. certified is a medical doctor board independent

emergency He is an medicine. Emergency Care Spectrum contractor with *3 working at the Mahaska 36 hours a week County Hospital. generally He works ten per month. Rhett twenty-four hour shifts per earns hour. $48.15 1990, his remarried in and he and Rhett daughter of their wife have the care second daughters two in 1992 and his wife’s born marriage. previous a Rhett’s second from employed outside of the presently wife is not home. and substi- physical

Karen is a education private school at which tute teacher. meals, housing, provides teaches her with she children, utilities, education for her and free monthly stipend of a net cash $323. petition a April In 1993 Rhett filed requesting granted he the decree be In primary physical care of the children. May cross-application for 1993 Karen filed a Johnson, Hester & Thomas M. Walter granted pri- requesting: she be Walter, Ottumwa, appellant. children; mary physical care of the Rhett be children; with the afforded liberal visitation Fairfield, appel- Benny Waggoner, B. support comport modified to child lee. support guidelines; the child and Rhett be required pay fees and costs. DONIELSON, C.J., and Heard CADY, HABHAB and JJ. physi- The district court found the shared arrangement working not and cal care was DONIELSON, Judge. Chief change in circum- constituted a substantial custody, child appeals Krone Rhett warranting a modification of the dis- stances provi- fee support, visitation and granted The court Karen solution decree. decree. Our review sions of a modification Rhett primary physical care of the children. Upon novo. our equity this action is de every granted other weekend was visitation parties’ arguments, the record review of the Saturday p.m. Sunday, a.m. to 6:00 9:00 law, custody affirm the applicable and the we visitation, holiday and three weeks alternate provisions of the decree. and fee The court further found summer visitation. support and modify the child $7,000 monthly Rhett’s net income was appellate provisions Karen Krone and award $1,100 per month. Karen’s net income was attorney fees. $2,100 pay The court ordered Rhett monthly support. child The court also or- were divorced Rhett and Karen Krone $1,500 pay of Karen’s attor- dered Rhett to children, Sarah, They two have ney appeals requests Karen fees. Rhett Sam, September bom born appellate 11,1985. February The decree of dissolution joint legal provided have would I. CUSTODY custody physical care of their and shared agreed physi Both the shared provided Rhett children. The decree also provided in the dissolu- arrangement cal care pay support in the amount of would child working, and tion decree was not each II. CHILD SUPPORT primary physical to be wished awarded trial contends the court erred The district care Sarah and Sam. raising obligation his a arrangement the shared found month and he should continue to working change a substantial of cir- month as in the dissolution decree. cumstances modification of the de- warranted argues court erroneously the district It cree. concluded Karen should be awarded of his monthly determined the amount net In denying care of the children. improperly income and concluded the child trial, motion support guidelines Rhett’s for a new the district required at least support. noted its decision had 30% his income as custodial been demeanor, “upon appearance, based char- Neither Rhett nor Karen filed a current acter, hours, *4 credibility, history, working and affidavit of financial status. Iowa Code parties demonstrated abilities of the them- (1993). § Testimony 598.13 was offered re- selves.” garding party’s each income and Rhett of-

fered his 1992 tax return and recent cases, custody “In child the best into stubs evidence. govern of

interests the child is the first and parent’s A court must determine a ing Marriage Rodg consideration.” In re of monthly current from income the most reli ers, (Iowa 43, App.1991). 470 N.W.2d 44 We presented. able evidence In re Marriage of parent to in look determine which will the (Iowa Powell, 531, 1991). 474 534 N.W.2d provide future an environment where the We have examined Rhett’s 1992 tax return likely is most In Marriage child to thrive. re and recent stubs and conclude sufficient (Iowa Engler, App. 625 N.W.2d of which evidence existed from the district 1993). reviewing In a district court’s award could had a monthly court conclude he net custody, by findings we of are not bound its $7,000. monthly income of Rhett’s net Since give them but deference because the district $3,001, income exceeds the amount of child view, firsthand, had an to opportunity support to be within awarded was the district the demeanor of and the evaluate Steele, Marriage court’s discretion. In re of them as custodians. id. See (Iowa App.1993). 502 N.W.2d 21-22 statutory factors of Iowa Code subsections The record reveals both love the 598.21(4) (8) may and be considered when the good children have homes for guidelines require judicial discretion. Pow during custody them the the course of shared ell, 474 at 532. arrangement. with We concur the district recognize sup award of child an physical conclusion that shared care port need not to that which be limited is longer no working is should be necessary to current of meet the actual needs modified. We affirm award of the chil- the child, may living but the standard of a reflect physical to Karen. dren’s care She was the enjoyed the child would have but for the primary prior children’s to caretaker the dis- Powell, N.W.2d at dissolution. attempted good solution and has to foster a so, Even we award of conclude an relationship children and between the monthly child was excessive. We the since divorce. Karen’s work schedule support obligation conclude Rhett’s child essentially children’s mirrors the school $1,500 per should be set at month. maximum schedule would facilitate con- oversight tact of the children Karen. III. VISITATION We believe the district court was Rhett contends the visitation awarded position parent’s to each best observe de- by unduly the district limited and he court is credibility respect meanor and assess with be awarded additional visitation with should various at issues which arose trial. We determining appropriate his children. In visitation, guided by affirm decision to award the children’s are amount of we primary principle Karen. a court order such visitation care to should opportunity could award when she a child the fees will ensure as proof no of continuing physical and emotional offered their amount. maximum parent. See noncustodial contact authority cites for the no 598.41(1) (1993). § Iowa Code is proposition proof an offer of or itemization necessary may a before district court award indicates she does not In her brief Karen proceedings. fees object extending Rhett’s visitation in- is While the submission of such evidence Friday nights giving him visita- and to clude recommended, helpful and its absence does night during the weeks when one week tion preclude an fees. award of visitation. Ac- not have weekend he does court’s de- cordingly, we the district Attorney for modifi fees actions provide that Rhett’s weekend visits cree cation of dissolution decrees are not matter every Friday p.m. 5:00 other run from will right may prevail but awarded to the Sunday requested by on as p.m. until 5:00 ing party in an reasonable amount deemed During the in which he does Rhett. weeks Kimmerle, re Marriage the court. In visitation, he will have not have weekend one 143, 145 App.1989). 447 N.W.2d Kar night evening 5:00 week prevailed “pre on the is the en merits and p.m. night visita- p.m. until 9:00 This week vailing party” purposes award of of an mutually agreed by a night tion will be on (1993); § Iowa 598.36 Code *5 agree parties, they and if cannot as to a the Roerig, Marriage see also In re of Wednesdays. night, it will be held on App.1993). requests three weeks of summer his two-day This was a trial be increased to six weeks. Karen visitation by discovery preceded proceed considerable private the school does not asserts children’s ings. judge’s ruling The trial indicates as much vacation as provide for summer reviewed the court file and could estimate awarding six weeks of public schools spent time the amount of Karen’s counsel on to Rhett is not reasonable under the ease. Rhett concedes the trial court has the circumstances. We the decree to expertise regarding of attor some the value proposed compromise on include Karen’s this ney necessity spending fees and the time parties equally divide issue. will particular on issues. Trial courts have con time, summer with each children’s vacation awarding attorney siderable discretion in deciding they party prefer the time alter- fees. We find sufficient evidence from the desig- years. nate Rhett will be the first to trial court record from which the court could preferred nate his summer visitation with the $1,500 par have concluded a reasonable designation will children for 1995. Such performed by tial award for Karen’s services by any mutually agreed made date to attorney. We affirm this award. 1 if or cannot agree. see no reason to modi- otherwise APPELLATE V. ATTORNEY FEES fy respect the decree with to the district requests appel Karen an award of major holidays court’s of visitation on award attorney late fees. to We have the discretion reject argument Rhett’s on this issue. appellate attorney award under Iowa fees addressing Code section 598.36. In Karen’s TRIAL IV. ATTORNEY FEES it, request making we consider needs in ability pay of Rhett Kar and whether appeals from the district obligated to en was defend the trial court’s requiring court’s order him to appeal. on at Roerig, decision 503 N.W.2d Kar Karen’s fees. Rhett contends prevailed appeal, has 623. Karen on any en failed to submit evidence or itemiza appellate Rhett should contribute toward her tion of her fees and Rhett was fees. We order Rhett opportunity respond to the ne denied an apply appellate to Karen’s cessity in or of the fees reasonableness appeal of this to Rhett. The costs are taxed challenges curred. Rhett whether Karen “prevailing party” was the and if the district AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. CADY, J., concurs.

HABHAB, J., dissents.

HABHAB, Judge (concurring part; dis-

senting part). respects

I concur in all majority with the

opinion except part that which covers the

subject support. of child As to the child allowance, so, I doing dissent and in

I would affirm trial allowance per month.

$2100 Marriage

In re the of Thomas L. Nancy

HARRIS I. Harris.

Upon the Petition of Thomas Harris, Appellee,

L. *6 Concerning Nancy Harris,

And I.

Appellant.

No. 94-750. Appeals

Court of of Iowa.

Feb. 1995. Buzzell, Davenport, appel-

Arthur L. lant. Waterman,

Maria Mihalakis of Lane & Waterman, Davenport, appellee. by HAYDEN, P.J.,

Heard and SACKETT HUITINK, JJ. HAYDEN, Presiding Judge. Nancy

Thomas and Harris were married in They together: had two children Ka-