No. 3-658 / 03-0631Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed September 24, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forHardin County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.
Tanya Fouts appeals from the physical care provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Lynn Wiese of Barker, McNeal, Wiese Holt, Iowa Falls, for appellant.
James Walters of Walters Johnson, Iowa Falls, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
Tanya Fouts appeals from the physical care provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree. She contends the district court erred in granting primary physical care of the parties’ son, Brian, to her former spouse, Dean Fouts. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Tanya and Dean were married in February 1992. Their only child, Brian, was born in August 1992. Tanya filed a petition for separate maintenance on July 25, 2002. Dean filed an answer and counterclaim seeking to dissolve the marriage. Following trial in February 2003, the district court entered a decree granting Tanya and Dean joint custody of Brian with Dean having primary physical care. Tanya appeals. The sole issue presented by her appeal is primary physical care.
II. Scope of Review
In this equity action, our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. We have a duty to examine the entire record and adjudicate rights anew on the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Smith, 573 N.W.2d 924, 926 (Iowa 1998). We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)(g). This is because the trial court has a first-hand opportunity to hear the evidence and view the witnesses. In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992).
III. Primary Physical Care
In any custody determination, the primary consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). The goal is to place the child in the environment most likely to bring him to healthy physical, mental, and social maturity Id. In considering what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child, the court is required to consider statutory factors. Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2003). These statutory factors and the factors identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974), are appropriately considered in determining the award of physical care. Will, 489 N.W.2d at 398.
Tanya contends the district court’s decision to award primary physical care of Brian to Dean is not in the best interests of the child. We disagree. In reaching its decision the district court made several specific findings on this issue. The court found that Brian had a “verbally combative and disputatious relationship” with his mother, which he did not have with his father. The court also noted that Brian clearly expressed a preference to reside with his father, but did not give much weight to this finding because of Brian’s age. Finally, the court considered an experienced custody evaluator’s conclusion that Brian’s best interests would be served by placement with his father. Although we find no serious deficiencies with Tanya’s ability to parent, we believe the trial court’s decision to award primary physical care to Dean is amply supported by the record.
In situations where both parents would prove effective caretakers, we believe the district court’s findings on physical care are entitled to particular weight. The trial court had the parties before it, was able to observe their demeanor and was in a better position to evaluate them as custodians. In re Marriage of Engler, 503 N.W.2d 623, 625 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). After de novo review, we see no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.