IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-2224

Filed November 23, 2016

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MELANIE LEE DOYLE

AND DANIEL BRIEN DOYLE

Upon the Petition of

MELANIE LEE DOYLE,

Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning

DANIEL BRIEN DOYLE,

Respondent-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, 

Judge.

Daniel Doyle appeals the physical-care and child-support provisions of the 

decree dissolving his marriage to Melanie Doyle. AFFIRMED. 

Kodi A. Brotherson of Becker & Brotherson Law Offices, Sac City, for 

appellant.

Gary J. Shea of Gary J. Shea Law Offices, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Daniel Doyle appeals the physical-care and child-support provisions of the 

district court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Melanie Doyle. Daniel and 

Melanie were married in September 2002. They have two minor children. 

On appeal, Daniel argues the district court should have awarded the 

parties shared physical care of their children. He also asserts, should we modify 

the award of physical care, the parties’ child-support obligations should be 

recalculated consistent with a shared-care arrangement. 

After a three-day trial, the court entered a decree dissolving the parties’

marriage. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their children and 

granted Melanie physical care with extraordinary visitation to Daniel.1 The court 

also ordered Daniel to pay Melanie $542.88 per month in child support. 

The district court considered Daniel’s request to award the parties joint 

physical care of their children and determined, under the unique circumstances 

of this case, that a joint physical-care arrangement was not in the children’s best 

interests. Specifically, the court found “[t]he regular and substantial degree of 

conflict between the parties” and “[t]he extent of mutual distrust . . . disfavor[ed] a 

shared-care arrangement.” 

It is obvious on our review of the record that both parties are capable of 

parenting their children and love them very much. However, the district court 

found Melanie had been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their lives

and the children were happy and thriving in her care. We find no reason to 

 

1

“Extraordinary visitation” is defined as visitation that “exceeds 127 days per year.” 

Iowa Ct. R. 9.9. 
3

disagree with the district court’s determination that physical care of the children 

with Melanie is in their best interests. 

Upon our de novo review of the record, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.907, along 

with a careful study of the briefs and the district court’s ruling,2 we conclude the 

findings of fact and credibility determinations in the district court’s lengthy and 

thorough ruling correctly address the physical-care and child-support issues

Daniel raises. Giving deference to those credibility findings, see Iowa R. App. P. 

6.904(3)(g), and having determined the district court correctly applied the 

governing legal and equitable principles, we approve of the reasons and 

conclusions of the opinion and conclude a full opinion of this court would not 

augment or clarify existing case law. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum 

opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e). We decline to award 

either party appellate attorney fees. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

2

Included in our review is our decision in a related appeal in which our court reversed 

the district court’s order extending a final no-contact order between the parties. See

Doyle v. Doyle, No. 13-0753, 2013 WL 6405474, at *1–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013).