Opinion
No. 1-652 / 00-1848.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, KRISTIN L. HIBBS, Judge.
Jeffrey Bartmess appeals the physical care provision of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Douglas D. Wolfe of Wolfe Law Offices, Mount Vernon, for appellant.
Guy P. Booth, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Heard by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Jeffrey Bartmess appeals the district court's decision to award to his former wife, Kimberly, the physical care of the parties' minor child. We affirm.
Background Facts . Jeffrey and Kimberly were married in 1991 and adopted their child Valerie shortly after her birth in 1997. Their relationship was tumultuous, both before and after their 1999 separation. Subsequent to the separation, Valerie's temporary physical care was placed with Kimberly. At trial Jeffrey presented concerns about Valerie's physical health and Kimberly's ability to appropriately minister to Valerie's medical needs. Both parties presented conflicting testimony regarding the ability and willingness of each parent to properly care for and interact with Valerie. Evidence was also presented as to each party's anger-management difficulties and emotional issues, as well as Jeffrey's tendency towards exaggeration and reputation for untruthfulness. The court found that, while both parents loved their child and wanted to be involved in her life, Valerie's best interests were served by awarding Kimberly physical care. Jeffrey 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 Forbes, 570 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Iowa 1997). This is particularly true regarding issues of credibility, given the district court's opportunity to directly observe witness demeanor. Id. 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 . Although the evidence clearly shows both parents significantly participated in Valerie's physical care during the marriage, it does not demonstrate, with any level of certainty, which parent provided the majority of such care. Moreover, while we give significant consideration to placing a child with the primary caregiver, it is not the singular factor in determining which placement would best serve the child's interests. In re Marriage of Wilson, 532 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). The goal 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, the nature of each proposed home environment, and the effect of continuing or disrupting the child's current status. See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974); Iowa Code § 598.41 (1999).
In deciding to let Valerie's physical care remain with Kimberly, the district court made a number of factual findings and credibility assessments relevant to the above criterion. The court noted that, beyond some minor allergy problems, Valerie was a physically healthy child. It found Jeffrey's health-related concerns to be exaggerated and his allegations regarding Kimberly's failure to properly administer medication unconvincing. The court also found Jeffrey had a penchant for exaggeration, and such tendency, along with testimony regarding Jeffrey's reputation for untruthfulness, seemed to be important considerations in the court's decision. While acknowledging Kimberly's faults, including the fact she was currently pregnant by another man, the court noted Kimberly was more in tune with the need for parent-child interaction. The court placed significant focus on Jeffrey's controlling, critical and demeaning attitude toward Kimberly, and how such behavior created a negative environment for Valerie. Based largely upon this type of behavior, the court found Jeffrey would not be supportive of Valerie's relationship with her mother.
We have no reason to question the foregoing factual findings and credibility assessments, as all are supported by the testimony and evidence presented by the parties. Deferring to these findings and assessments, we find the district court properly determined Valerie's best interests are served by placing her in Kimberly's physical care. We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.
Appellate Attorney Fees . Kimberly seeks attorney fees on appeal. Such an award is discretionary, and is determined by assessing the needs of the requesting party, the opposing party's ability to pay, and whether the requesting party was forced to defend the appeal. In re Marriage of Gaer, 476 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Iowa 1991). Upon review we find it appropriate to award Kimberly $1,800 in appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal are assessed to Jeffrey.
AFFIRMED.