Opinion
No. 4-812 / 04-0733
Filed February 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Timothy O'Grady, Judge.
Mother appeals from the decision of the district court awarding joint physical care of the parties' minor daughter. AFFIRMED.
Norman Springer of McGinn, McGinn, Jennings Springer, Council Bluffs, and Richard Crotty, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
David Poore, Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., Mahan, Miller, and Vaitheswaran, JJ., and Nelson, S.J.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2003).
Tracy Booher appeals from the district court order awarding joint physical care of the parties' minor daughter, Kaylee Salmons. Tracy asserts she should be awarded primary physical care of Kaylee. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings.
Tracy Booher and Justin Salmons are the parents of Kaylee, born on September 14, 2003. On December 8, 2003, Justin filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and child support. Following a temporary hearing, the court entered a temporary order granting Justin primary physical care of Kaylee, subject to reasonable visitation by Tracy. The parties subsequently presented a stipulated modification of the temporary order that granted Tracy weekly visitation with Kaylee. A final hearing was held on April 2, 2004. The court entered the final decree granting the parties' joint physical care of Kaylee on April 7, 2004. The order required Kaylee's physical care to be changed between Tracy and Justin every three months, with liberal visitation granted to the noncustodial parent. Tracy appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
We conduct a de novo review of decisions regarding custody and physical care. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). We are not bound by the district court's findings of fact, but do give them deference because the district court had the opportunity to view, firsthand, the demeanor of the witnesses when testifying. In re Marriage of Forbes, 570 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Iowa 1997). The controlling consideration in child custody cases is always what is in the best interests of the child. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( o).
III. Joint Physical Care.
Tracy contends the district court should have awarded her primary physical care of Kaylee. She argues Kaylee's best interests are not served by a joint physical care arrangement. Justin avers Kaylee is thriving in the joint physical care arrangement and the level of cooperation between the parties supports the district court's order.
The primary consideration in determining an award of child custody is the best interests of the child. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( o). The court's objective is to place a child in the environment most likely to foster healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d at 683. Although joint physical care was once strongly disfavored by the courts, the Iowa legislature has proclaimed it a viable disposition of a custody dispute. Iowa Code § 598.41(5) (2003); In re Marriage of Swenka, 576 N.W.2d 615, 616 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). At the time of the dissolution proceeding, Iowa Code section 598.41(5) permitted an award of joint physical care where "such action would be in the best interest of the child and would preserve the relationships between each parent and the child. . . ."
Following the entry of the final order in this case, the Iowa legislature again amended section 598.41(5) to reflect a preference for the award of joint physical care. This amendment, effective July 1, 2004, requires a court denying joint physical care to accompany the denial with written findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why such an arrangement is not in the best interests of the child. This amendment was not in effect on the date of the final order entered in this matter.
The district court determined Kaylee's best interests would be served under a joint physical care arrangement. The court indicated both Tracy and Justin were loving parents and provided Kaylee with competent caregiving. However, the court further concluded both parties were immature and relied upon their parents for much of their support. Our de novo review of the record reveals the parties are equally suitable as parents and have been generally cooperative under a joint care arrangement since the entry of the temporary order on December 22, 2003. To second-guess the district court's findings and credibility assessments would unnecessarily disrupt a successful arrangement in place since April 7, 2004. Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court granting the parties joint physical care of Kaylee. This decision gives the parties an excellent opportunity to improve both their parenting and communication skills. Accordingly, we affirm.