Opinion
No. 1-877 / 01-0969.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, RICHARD D. MORR, Judge.
Anita Gilmore appeals the district court's order granting physical care of the parties' minor child to Donald Earls. AFFIRMED.
Stuart D. Nielsen, Corning, for appellant.
Arnold O. Kenyon, III, Creston, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Anita Gilmore appeals the district court's order granting physical care of the parties' minor child to Donald Earls. She contends the decree establishes de jure custody in the father but de facto custody in the mother. We affirm.
Anita Gilmore and Donald Earls are the parents of Traycee Earls, born October 1995. Anita and Donald have never been married. In September 2000, Donald brought an action seeking physical care of Traycee. After a May 2001 trial, the district court granted Donald's petition. Although Donald was awarded physical care of Traycee, the court ordered that if Traycee needs care for more than two consecutive days, Donald was to offer Anita the opportunity of caring for her. Anita appeals, arguing that because Donald works ten day shifts out of state, the court's order has the effect of awarding her de facto custody of Traycee. She requests physical care of Traycee be placed with her.
We review actions tried in equity de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 4. We give weight to the findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(7). As in any custody determination, our primary consideration is the best interest of the child. Northland v. Starr, 581 N.W.2d 210, 212 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
Upon de novo review, we agree with the trial court that it is in Traycee's best interest that Donald be her physical custodian. The court crafted a custody arrangement based on findings that Donald is the more stable of the two parents and after noting, somewhat generously, that Anita's "housekeeping abilities leave something to be desired." Although the district court's order allows Anita the opportunity to care for Traycee on a schedule more akin to a shared care arrangement, we do not find any error in doing so. Accordingly, we affirm
AFFIRMED.