No. 5-168 / 04-0984Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Bryan H. McKinley, Judge.
Craig Nelson appeals a district court order granting primary physical care of the parties’ child to Roxanne Nelson.AFFIRMED.
William Morrison of Locher Morrison, Mason City, for appellant.
Timothy Lapointe of Lapointe Lapointe, P.C., Mason City, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Craig Nelson appeals a district court order granting primary physical care of the parties’ child to Roxanne Nelson in their dissolution action. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Craig and Roxanne were married on June 17, 1995, and are the parents of one child, Darin, born April 16, 2000. Prior to their dissolution hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement encompassing all relevant issues except for which parent would serve as Darin’s primary physical caregiver.
Craig, age thirty, works for a manufacturing business in Mason City, Iowa, and lives in Rockwell, Iowa. In 2000, Craig was diagnosed with depression and agoraphobia, which is effectively treated through medication.
Roxanne, age twenty-nine, also works for a manufacturing business in Mason City, and currently resides with her boyfriend, Kevin Squier, at his home in Mason City. Shortly after Darin was born, Roxanne was diagnosed with temporary depression; however, she is in general good health.
When the parties initially separated, Craig moved out of the marital home, and Roxanne served by agreement as Darin’s primary caregiver subject to Craig’s visitation. Craig contends he sought primary care after he learned that a child abuse report had been made against Kevin.
On April 26, 2004, the district court approved the parties’ partial stipulation, incorporated it into its conclusions of law, and granted Roxanne primary care of Darin. In reaching its conclusion, the court held in part:
Roxanne has been the primary caretaker for taking Darin to the doctor’s office, which became her exclusive role. The Court understands the reason why, since Craig’s hourly rate at his employment was more than Roxanne’s, therefore more money would be lost to the family if Craig were to take Darin to the doctor’s office.
Perhaps one of the more convincing observations of conduct which caused the Court to conclude that the primary caretaker was Roxanne, was the informal agreement which was reached by the parties at the time of separation. In August 2003, Craig left the home to live with his parents while Roxanne and Darin stayed in the family home until October, when she and Darin moved to Mason City, after which a schedule was set up where Craig would see Darin every other weekend and one to two nights per week.
The Court finds that this course of parental care which was designed by the parties perhaps best demonstrates the practice and assumption of child care responsibilities and duties which was evident during the course of the marriage.
To further support the Court’s conclusion and the pattern of conduct that Craig and Roxanne exercised during this period of separation, an incident occurring on Christmas Eve was also most telling. Both Craig and Roxanne related their perceptions of what had transpired on Christmas Eve when Darin became ill. Even though this time was designated for Craig’s time, Craig voluntarily relinquished Darin to Roxanne when he became ill.
. . . .
In the instant case, the Court is faced with the difficult yet gratifying decision in noting that both parents are capable parents and independently able to care for Darin. However, the Court finds that placement of Darin with Roxanne continues a pattern of parental conduct which was demonstrated throughout the marriage as well as the time of separation.
Craig appeals this decision.
On appeal Craig contends the district court erred in finding that Roxanne “would provide the home most likely to bring [Darin] to a healthy physical, mental and social maturity.”
II. Standard of Review
Our review of these equitable proceedings is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. It is our duty to examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues property presented. In re Marriage of Weinberger, 507 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). We give weight to the fact findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
III. Physical Care
In child custody cases, the critical issue is not which parent possesses the greater right to the child; rather the controlling consideration must be the best interests of the child. Heyer v. Peterson, 307 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 1981). This decision requires selection of a custodial parent who can minister more effectively to the long-range best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Kunkel, 555 N.W.2d 250, 253 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The objective should always be to place the child in the environment most likely to bring that child to healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. See In re Marriage of Rebouche, 587 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The court should also consider the characteristics and needs of the child, including the child’s age, the characteristics of the parents, the capacity and desire of each parent to provide for the needs of the child, the relationship of the child with each parent, the nature of each proposed environment and the effect of continuing or changing an existing custodial status. In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).
There is no presumption in favor of the mother or the father See In re Marriage of Bowen, 219 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Iowa 1974). Greater primary care experience is one of many factors the court considers, but it does not ensure an award of physical care. In re Marriage of Wilson, 532 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
In his brief, Craig contends “he offers Darin a better future due in part to stability in his home environment, consistency and more certainty with respect to school and daycare needs, the support of his extended family, his efforts to involve Darin with church activities and better judgment regarding involvement of significant others in each parent’s life.” He believes the court placed too much emphasis on its finding that Roxanne served as the primary caregiver during the marriage and separation.
The record demonstrates that both Craig and Roxanne have acted admirably in placing the best interests of Darin ahead of their own and will both continue to serve crucial roles in Darin’s upbringing. With that said, we agree with the district court’s determination and adopt it as our own that Darin’s interests are best served by granting Roxanne primary physical care, which will continue the role she has played during and after the marriage See In re Marriage of Udelhofen, 444 N.W.2d 473, 479 (Iowa 1989) (stating deference to trial court is not scaled down when trial court noted “the question was almost too painfully close to call”). Furthermore, we find Roxanne is able to adequately provide for Darin’s educational and daycare needs in Mason City.
While we agree with the district court’s ultimate decision to award Roxanne primary physical care of Darin, we remain concerned about her choice to live with Kevin based on his somewhat tumultuous relationships with his former spouses, and his exhibited lack of concern for one of his children. When a parent seeks to establish a home with another adult, that adult’s background and his or her relationship with the children becomes a significant factor in a custody dispute. There are two reasons for this: (1) because of the place the companion will have in the child or children’s lives, and (2) not less significantly, because the type of relationship the parent has sought to establish and the manner he or she has established it, is an indication of where that parent’s priority for his or her children is in his or her life. In re Marriage of Decker, 666 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Iowa Ct.App. 2003). While the record supports the district court’s conclusion that “[Kevin] has treated both Roxanne and Darin in a responsible way,” we caution Roxanne to ensure that Kevin’s behavior does not give us grounds to revisit the primary caregiver arrangement in the future. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.