Opinion
No. 5-362 / 04-1591
Filed June 29, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Richard J. Vogel, Judge.
Philip Carrier appeals from the physical care provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Steven Gardner of Kiple, Denefe, Beaver, Gardner Zingg, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer, J., and Brown, S.J.
Senior Judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
Philip Carrier appeals from the physical care provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He claims the district court erred in granting primary physical care of the parties' son, Cody, to his former spouse, Janis Carrier. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
Philip and Janis were married in Fairfield, Iowa, in 1998. Their only child, Cody, was born in August 1999. Philip filed a petition to dissolve the parties' marriage in December 2002. Janis moved out of the marital home a short time later. The district court granted Janis temporary physical care of Cody pending trial.
Janis has three children from a previous marriage. Those children are now adults. Janis raised the three children as a single parent after her husband died in a plane crash.
At the time of trial in August of 2004, Philip was fifty-seven years old and Janis was forty-eight years old. Philip has a bachelor's degree in Philosophy and master's degrees in Business Administration, Urban and Regional Planning, and Geography. He also has a commercial license for single and multiple engine airplanes, seaplanes, and gliders. Since his discharge from the Marine Corps in 1970, Philip has worked for twelve different employers. Some of his jobs have overlapped. He currently works as a headhunter securing employment for radiologists in Fairfield, Iowa. He earns approximately $32,000-$36,000 per year.
Janis has a bachelor's degree in nutrition. However, her employment in that field ceased after the birth of her youngest son from her first marriage. Janis currently works part-time at a store in downtown Fairfield. Although she is licensed to sell real estate, she has not worked in that field.
Following a trial which focused on issues involving Cody, the district court entered a decree granting Philip and Janis joint custody of Cody with Janis having primary physical care. Philip appealed.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
Our review of this equitable proceeding is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the district court's findings of fact, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g). This is because the district court had a first-hand opportunity to hear the evidence and view the witnesses. In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 397 (Iowa 1992).
III. Physical Care
Philip argues the district court erred in granting Janis physical care of Cody. He asserts that he could do a better job of raising the child.
In any custody or physical care determination, the primary consideration is the best interests of the child. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( o); In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Iowa 1999). In considering which physical care arrangement is in the child's best interests, the court considers the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2003), as well as the factors identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).
The critical issue is which parent will do better in raising the child; gender is irrelevant, and neither parent should have a greater burden than the other. In re Marriage of Courtade, 560 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). 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). The court's objective is to place the child in the environment most likely to bring him to healthy physical, mental and social maturity. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d at 683. With these principles in mind, we address the parties' contentions regarding physical care.
The district court concluded that either Philip or Janis would be a suitable caretaker for Cody, but ultimately decided it was in the best interests of Cody to be placed in his mother's physical care. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find no reason to disagree with the court's conclusions.
Janis has always been Cody's primary caretaker. She is a much more experienced parent than Philip. Janis successfully raised three children as a single parent with limited financial resources after her first husband was killed. Janis has demonstrated the ability to provide the routine, structure, consistency, and stability that Cody needs. Although Philip is obviously a well-meaning father, it appears that Cody is constantly entertained and often overindulged when he is with his father. Cody has clearly engaged in some age-inappropriate activities while in his father's care.
Philip's tendency toward emotional detachment and isolation from others is also a cause for concern. Cody appears to be his father's only significant emotional connection. The district court concluded, "Philip is obsessed with Cody." Psychologists, Dr. John Hartson and Dr. Debra Kay, conducted custody evaluations of the parties. Both doctors recommended that primary physical care of Cody be placed with his mother. Upon our de novo review of the record, and giving due deference to the district court's assessments of the evidence, we affirm the court's decision to designate Janis as Cody's physical caretaker.