In September 1994, however, the family court issued a temporary placement order awarding legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities to husband. This order was a response to an unpleasant incident between the parties at the hospital to which Scott was taken following an automobile accident. As Scott was sixteen at the time of the final hearing, and had been living with his father for several months, the court may have reasonably concluded that his relationship with the primary care provider was not a particularly important factor in the custody decision. These findings are supported by the evidence, and suggest that Scott's best interests are served by remaining with his father. There was no abuse of discretion.
Husband appeals the family court's property division and maintenance orders.
The court ordered that the parties' assets be divided roughly equally, and that husband pay wife permanent maintenance in an amount sufficient to equalize the parties' incomes. Again, this is an area in which the family court has broad discretion. We do not agree with this characterization of the family court's decision. These are the kinds of factors that we identified in Delozier as supporting permanent equalization of incomes. The court determined that the award would permit wife to find suitable housing, take classes to prepare her for employment, and meet her reasonable personal needs.