Appellant had a second child in February 1995. The parties separated in May 1995, had a physical altercation in June, and respondent petitioned to dissolve the marriage in July. During the dissolution, the district court denied appellant access to files of the guardian ad litem and a psychologist respondent retained, but who did not testify at trial. After trial, the district court found respondent's conduct in June satisfied the definition of domestic abuse and awarded him custody of the parties' child. Citing this provision and the finding of abuse, appellant claims the district court erred by considering whether she would foster a father-child relationship.
Statutory interpretation is a legal question.
The provision appellant cites does not identify the abusing or abused persons. Here, there is no finding that respondent abused the child. Statutes are to be construed to avoid conflicts with other statutes. The district court did not err by considering appellant's limited desire to foster the father-child relationship. Review of custody awards is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applying the law.