Opinion
No. 5-720 / 05-0804
Filed November 23, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Alan L. Pearson, Judge.
Michele Krapfl appeals from a district court order placing the minor child of the parties in the physical care of James L. Starr, Sr. AFFIRMED.
John M. Carr of Carr Carr, Manchester, for appellee.
Gary McClintock of Hoeger McClintock, Independence, for appellant.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
James L. Starr and Michele R. Krapfl are the parents of A.J.S., who was born in 2002. The district court placed A.J.S. in the physical care of James, and Michele appeals. After our de novo review, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we affirm.
While this case was pending and by virtue of an October 2004 temporary order, the parties had joint physical care of A.J.S. and exchanged A.J.S. each Sunday in Strawberry Point. In its final decree, entered on March 21, 2005, the district court noted this was a "very close" case. It noted both parents were suitable persons to have physical care of A.J.S., and both had their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Concerning James, the court commented favorably on his stability and work record. The court, however, noted James had "no role" in the child's life until the child was removed from Michele's care during a child abuse investigation. It also noted James has limited involvement with his children from prior relationships. Finally, it noted James's involvement in A.J.S.'s life was probably attributable to James's spouse.
Regarding Michele, the court noted she had, until August 2004, been A.J.S.'s caretaker. The court, however, concluded she "did not take seriously her daughter's [one of A.J.S.'s siblings] complaint of sexual abuse" by her father. That complaint was eventually confirmed by the Department of Human Services. The father is Michele's ex-husband. He was convicted of a separate sex offense in 1995. The court concluded Michele did not act immediately to protect her daughter. The court also noted Michele had maintained a relationship with her ex-husband. Finally, the district court noted A.J.S. "suffers an unusual number of injuries" while in Michele's care.
After weighing the evidence, the district court concluded the large number of injuries A.J.S. suffers in Michele's care tipped the scales in favor of placing A.J.S. in James's physical care. The district court found: "The best evidence is that [A.J.S.'s] bruises occur in the respondent's home and are principally inflicted by [A.J.S.'s] half-sisters."
We have reviewed the trial record and have given suitable weight to the findings of the district court, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g), which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. We have given special attention to any record evidence shedding light on whether or why A.J.S. suffered an unusual amount of physical harm in Michele's care. After doing so, we concur with the district court's assessment of the record made before it. We conclude the district court's decree placing A.J.S. in James's physical care is in A.J.S.'s best interest. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( o). We affirm the judgment of the district court.