IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA ELAINE LYMAN AND TRENT ALAN LYMAN Upon the Petition of ANGELA ELAINE LYMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning TRENT ALAN LYMAN, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-103 / 06-0921
Filed May 23, 2007
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ANGELA ELAINE LYMAN
AND TRENT ALAN LYMAN
Upon the Petition of
ANGELA ELAINE LYMAN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
TRENT ALAN LYMAN,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, James M. Drew,
Judge.
The respondent appeals from the district court’s decree dissolving his
marriage. AFFIRMED.
Dan McGrevey, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
James W. McCarthy and Monty Fisher, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J. and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Trent Lyman appeals the custody provision of the district court’s decree
dissolving his marriage to Angela Lyman. We affirm.
Trent and Angela were married in 1993, and have three children: six-year
old twins, Saxon and Brayden, and two-year old Ariane. At the time of trial,
Angela was thirty-one years old and studying to become an x-ray technician at
Iowa Central Community College.
She plans on graduating in July 2007, at
which time she intends to take a “weekend package” where she would work three
out of four weekends in a month but still be considered full-time. She currently
resides in a three-bedroom house in Thor, Iowa. A neighbor, Virginia Haaland,
provides day care in Angela’s home until the twins leave for school in the
morning, and then cares for Ariane at her home the rest of the day. Haaland is
also available to return to Angela’s home after school, if necessary.
Trent, age thirty-three at the time of trial, works for Fort Dodge Animal
Health as a lab technician. His hours are from 6:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Thursday and he has Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off. He did not
anticipate any immediate change in his schedule or employment. He resides in
the marital home, and during the parties’ separation, cared for the children from
Thursday night through Sunday evening.
During the marriage, Angela had been the primary caregiver for the
children, although Trent has recently taken a more active role in their care. The
record does reflect, however, that both parents have some negative qualities:
Trent has repeatedly failed to have Ariane properly secured in her car seat while
he was driving, and Angela has a temper problem. There was a considerable
3
amount of testimony, regarding the parties’ mutual allegations of inappropriate
internet, romantic relationships. The district court found, and we agree, that their
behavior did not have “a significant impact on their ability to parent the children.”
Following the trial on contested issues, the district court issued a decree
dissolving the marriage and awarding joint legal custody of the children, with
physical care to Angela and visitation to Trent. Trent filed a motion to enlarge the
findings pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904, which was denied by the
district court. Trent appeals.
We review the provisions of a dissolution decree de novo. In re Marriage
of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242, 247 (Iowa 2006). “‘Although we decide the issues
raised on appeal anew, we give weight to the trial court’s factual findings,
especially with respect to the credibility of the witnesses.’” Id. (quoting In re
Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Iowa 2003)).
Trent argues that physical care of the children would be more properly
placed with him. 1 In determining which parent should be granted physical care,
our overriding consideration is the children’s best interests. In re Marriage of
Ford, 563 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1997). We consider a number of factors,
including the children’s needs and characteristics, the parents’ abilities to meet
the children’s needs, the nature of each proposed home environment, and the
effect of continuing or disrupting the children’s current status. See Iowa Code §
598.41(3) (2005); In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).
1
Trent also raises on appeal a request for shared physical care, which he did not
request or raise until his post-trial motion to enlarge. We conclude that this was
insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. See Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d
597, 600 (Iowa 1998).
4
In awarding physical care, the goal of the courts is to select the environment
most likely to cultivate physically, mentally and socially healthy children. In re
Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). We give significant
consideration to placing the children with the primary caregiver, but it is not the
singular factor in determining which placement would best serve the children’s
interests. In re Marriage of Wilson, 532 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
The district court found both parents would provide good care of the
children, but concluded that physical care is better placed with Angela.
We
agree. Although Trent focuses much of his argument on his perceived character
flaws of Angela, the district court determined that both he and Angela had
engaged in unsuitable behavior.
Consequently, the district court focused on
each of the parties’ affirmative qualities related to the care of the children. The
evidence supports that Angela has been the children’s primary caregiver for the
majority of their lives. She has been more attentive to the children’s needs than
has Trent, including their schooling and medical care. While each parent has
demonstrated the ability to adequately care for the children, we defer to the
district court’s credibility and relevant factual findings as supported by the record
that the children’s best interests would presently be better served by remaining in
the physical care of their mother.
Currently, Trent and Angela’s schedules are complimentary, allowing a
relatively smooth continuum of care for the children. We reiterate the district
court’s conclusion “that Trent should care for the children at all reasonable times
and places as can be agreed between the parties.”
We heartily agree that
Angela and Trent should work together so that if one parent is not available to
5
the children, the available parent will be considered before other child-care
arrangements are made.
We affirm the district court’s order.
Costs on appeal are assessed to Trent.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
