(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I would make Marc the physical custodian of the parties’ three children. While the evidence shows both Marc and Michelle to be concerned parents, the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Lamb, who have provided child care for the children since the oldest child was two months old, in my judgment clearly tips the scales in Marc’s favor. The trial court gave little weight to this couple’s testimony. I give considerable weight to the testimony of this couple who were chosen and trusted both by Marc and Michelle as child care providers.
I also look to the following findings made by the trial court:
It is quite probable that the children have and are more closely bonded with the Petitioner [Marc] than the Respondent [Michelle]. It is also undoubtedly true that it will be traumatic to separate the children from their father and place them in the custody of their mother. This trauma will not be permanent in nature and probably not even long-lasting. The Respondent [Michelle] should not be and will not be penalized for working to support this family in part at least at her husband’s insistence.
*153Both parties worked outside the home. Michelle has more education than Marc and her employment outside the home has been more lucrative. This family needed two incomes. Farming alone frequently does not provide adequate support for families.
Marc contends also that he did not receive a fair trial. Because we review de novo and make our own independent findings of fact, it is not necessary we address the issue and I do not address the issue.
The majority has corrected what I found to be a substantial inequity in the refusal of the trial court to allow Marc, a self-employed farmer, to claim any depreciation deduction. However, I depart from the majority’s suggestion that cash flow is in any way determinative of the net income of a self-employed business person or farmer.
HAYDEN, J., joins this partial dissent.