COX v. CAMP, 00-1894 (Iowa App. 1-28-2002)

No. 1-483 / 00-1894.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed January 28, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, MARK J. SMITH, Judge.

Samantha Camp appeals a district court order on Dwight Cox’s petition for custody of the parties’ minor child. AFFIRMED.

Mark R. Lawson of Mark R. Lawson, P.C., Maquoketa, for appellant.

Steven J. Kahler of Schoenthaler, Roberg, Bartelt Kahler, Maquoketa, for appellee.

Heard by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.

VOGEL, P.J.

Samantha Camp appeals the district court’s decision to award physical care of her minor child to the child’s father, Dwight Cox. We affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings. Dwight Cox and Samantha Camp met in 1997 when Dwight was home on leave from the military. The couple, both in their mid-twenties, began a long-distance relationship, and Dwight moved in with Samantha and her six-year-old daughter Tabitha in April 1998, upon his release from the Army. Dwight and Samantha’s child, John Patrick (J.P.), was born approximately ten months later. The relationship was tumultuous, and the parties were involved in several emotionally charged altercations, even after their separation in late 1999.

In ruling on Dwight’s request for J.P.’s physical care, the district court found Samantha’s poor life choices, which included a number of relationships with men who were abusive and/or had substance abuse issues, demonstrated a lack of a “stable, consistent lifestyle.” Although expressing concern over Dwight’s controlling nature, it awarded Dwight J.P.’s physical care, finding he would be able to provide more “stability, educational guidance, and emotional support” than could Samantha. Samantha appeals.

Scope of Review. We conduct a de novo review of decisions regarding custody and physical care. In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999); Iowa R. App. P. 4. We give deference to, but are not bound by, the findings of the district court. In re Marriage of Sires, 506 N.W.2d 813, 814 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). In determining which parent should be granted physical care, our overriding consideration is the child’s best interests. In re Marriage of Ford, 563 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1997); Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(15).

Physical Care. In awarding physical care, the goal of the courts is to select the environment most likely to cultivate a physically, mentally and socially healthy child. See Murphy, 592 N.W.2d at 683. In meeting that goal the court considers a number of factors, including the child’s needs and characteristics, the parents’ abilities to meet the child’s needs, and the nature of each proposed home environment. See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974); Iowa Code § 598.41 (1999). While the child’s physical and financial stability are important considerations, great emphasis is placed on achieving emotional stability for the child. See In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759, 762 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).

Here, both parents have serious individual shortcomings. Dwight was controlling of and demeaning towards Samantha and possesses antiquated views of gender roles. The district court did note its apprehension regarding Dwight’s willingness and ability to facilitate a relationship between Samantha and J.P., but seemed to attribute much of Dwight’s attitude to a reluctance to share his true emotions. We do not view Dwight in quite so generous a light. What the district court interpreted as emotional stoicism looks, from our vantage point, to be evidence of a detached and domineering nature.

For her part, Samantha has been repeatedly involved with men who were physically and emotionally abusive or suffering from substance abuse problems. She also has a demonstrated history of placing her own emotional needs before her children’s welfare. During her involvement with one man she uprooted Tabitha multiple times in a short period, moving her from state to state. There is also evidence two of Samantha’s prior romantic interests physically neglected and abused Tabitha. While Samantha eventually ended both relationships, she never took the step of reporting the men’s actions to the police.

Nor does it appear Samantha’s questionable judgment is limited to past relationships. At the time of trial she was involved with, and was pregnant by, an individual serving a sentence for a third-offense operating while intoxicated conviction. Such attitudes and behaviors raise serious concerns about the physical and emotional security of the home environment Samantha would be able to provide J.P.

Although Samantha has shown herself to be a loving and nurturing mother, we must concur with the district court’s assessment of her ability to provide J.P. with emotional stability and physical security. While we share Samantha’s misgivings regarding Dwight’s controlling personality, he is an otherwise able and loving parent. Dwight is also in the superior financial position. While Samantha had obtained a promising job by the time of trial, her prior work history was somewhat erratic and consisted largely of multiple, short-term positions. In contrast, Dwight has a demonstrated ability to obtain and maintain secure and long-term employment.[1]

Samantha points to J.P.’s relationship with Tabitha and argues nothing in the record provides a compelling reason to separate J.P. from his half-sister. While courts do attempt to keep siblings together whenever possible, if the record indicates separation might “better promote the long-term best interests of the children, then a court may depart from the rule.” Yarolem v. Ledford, 529 N.W.2d 297, 298 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Here, the concerns about Samantha’s stability outweigh the desire to place J.P., who was less than two years old at the time of trial and is over seven years younger than his half-sister, in the same home as his sibling. Because Dwight is more capable than Samantha to provide for J.P.’s physical, emotional and social needs, we affirm the district court’s award of physical care.

AFFIRMED.