COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 5, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before
¶1 PER CURIAM. Scott Flaschenriem appeals that portion of a divorce judgment that determined physical placement of his child. Scott argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it made the placement determination. We affirm.
¶2 During their marriage, Scott and Tara Flaschenriem had one
child, Lauren, who was three years old at the time of trial. The first temporary order awarded
¶3 Physical placement determinations are committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Bohms v. Bohms, 144
¶4 Here, we are satisfied the court considered the factors
required by statute to be considered. See Wis.
Stat. § 767.41(5).[1] Consistent with the guardian ad litem’s
conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed
primarily with her mother, the court noted that
¶5 We see no reason to disturb the court’s decision. While the reasons for the court’s ultimate determination may not have been exhaustive, they need not have been. The court’s decision, as a whole, examined the facts, considered the appropriate factors and reached a reasoned and appropriate placement decision. The court did not erroneously exercise its discretion.
¶6 Scott next argues the circuit court failed to follow Wis. Stat. § 767.41(6)(a). That statute provides: “If legal custody or physical placement is contested, the court shall state in writing why its findings relating to legal custody or physical placement are in the best interests of the child.” Here, while the court did not state its findings in writing, any error was harmless. When the court states it findings orally, it would perhaps be better practice for the court to incorporate its oral findings into the final order or judgment, directing the court reporter to prepare a transcript of the relevant portions of the oral decision and then attaching the transcript to the final order or judgment so the reasons are “in writing.” However, in this case we conclude the transcript of the court’s oral decision, which has now been produced, fulfills the requirements of the statute.
¶7 Finally, we note that our review in this case has been unduly
complicated by the parties’ insistence upon re-arguing the evidence on appeal. Given the animosity between the parties, the
circuit court in this case was presented with a difficult task. The task on appeal was made no less difficult
by the parties’ insistence upon portraying the facts as if restating closing
arguments. In this regard, we cite a
statement in a case written over three decades ago: “Unfortunately, too many divorced parents
‘allow the desire to nurture their personal animosities to overshadow the
welfare of the child….’” Weichman
v. Weichman, 50
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.
[1] References to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted. Wisconsin Stat. ch. 767 was substantially renumbered and revised by 2005 Wis. Act 443.