Opinion
No. 3-328 / 02-1475
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.
Melissa Garner appeals from the district court's award of physical care of her daughter to her former husband. AFFIRMED.
Brian Muench, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellant.
Michael Winter, Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
The marriage of Melissa and Paul Garner was dissolved in April of 2000. They had one child of the marriage, Brooke, born April 15, 1997. At the time of the dissolution, the district court ordered physical care to be divided between the parties, alternating every six months. The court reserved jurisdiction to finalize the physical care issue after two years.
By the time trial was held on the physical care issue on August 9, 2002, both Melissa and Paul had remarried. Prior to trial, Paul requested and the district court ordered a custody study to be completed. At the trial, the investigator who completed the custody study testified that although Paul was the more suitable parent in most respects-he was actively involved in Brooke's activities, he was a gentle and caring father, and he could provide a more stable home for Brooke-she recommended Brooke be placed with her mother. The deciding factor was the arguments Paul had with his new wife. Paul was very verbal and yelled when he was angry, which upset Brooke enough that she mentioned it several times during the investigation. The investigator also expressed her concern about the smoking habits of Melissa and her husband. Brooke has been diagnosed with asthma, and while Melissa contends she and her husband quit smoking some time ago, Brooke reported to the investigator that they smoke in the house and car. Despite her concern about Melissa's smoking and because of her concern about Paul's temper, the investigator recommended Brooke's physical care be placed with Melissa.
Paul testified that he was seeking counseling from his pastor to help him deal with his anger more effectively. His wife testified that since he began counseling, his outbursts have decreased, and occur only twice a month. Nothing in any of the testimony indicated Paul had ever been physically violent toward Brooke or any other children, but his wife testified that Paul had pushed her once, early in their relationship.
The district court awarded physical care to Paul, citing several factors. The district court relied on Paul's active involvement in raising Brooke, including coaching her in soccer, enrolling her in preschool, taking her to church regularly, and attending her preschool programs. The district court noted that Paul does yell when he's angry, but has never physically abused anyone and is working on anger management. The district court also relied on Brooke's close relationship with her half-brother, Paul's son from a previous marriage. The district court expressed strong concern about the smoking allegedly occurring in Melissa's home. The district court concluded that some smoking was occurring, despite Melissa's denial.
Melissa appeals, contending the district court erred by awarding physical care to Paul and by ordering the costs of the custody study to be divided equally between Melissa and Paul.
We review child custody matters de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Craig, 462 N.W.2d 692, 693 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). In assessing a custody order, we give considerable weight to the judgment of the district court, which has had the benefit of hearing and observing the parties firsthand. In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273, 278 (Iowa 1995). Our primary concern is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Ihle, 577 N.W.2d 64, 69 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The critical inquiry is to determine which parent will do the best job in raising the child. Id. Our objective is to place the child in the environment most likely to bring him to healthy, physical, mental, and social maturity. In re Marriage of Knight, 507 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
After a de novo review of the record, we determine, as did the district court, it is in Brooke's best interest to be placed with her father. Paul has demonstrated a strong commitment to Brooke's development by being actively involved in all aspects of raising her. The custody report described Paul as a gentle and hands-on parent. We also attach import to Brooke's close bond with her half-brother. Although Brooke now has many half- and step-siblings, and we certainly do not discount her relationship with any of them, Paul's son is the only sibling she has known all her life. Although we share the same concerns about Paul's temper articulated by the district court and the custody investigator, we are persuaded by the testimony of Paul and his wife that he is actively seeking counseling for his temper and that he has already demonstrated improvement. We note that the investigator testified that if the issue of Paul's yelling were eliminated, she would recommend placement with him. Because we trust Paul is working successfully to manage his anger management issues, we find Brooke should be placed with her father.
Melissa also contends the district court erred by ordering the costs of the proceeding, including the cost of the home study, divided equally between the parties. She argues that Paul should be responsible for the entire cost of the custody study because he requested it. We, however, find no error in the district court's ordering splitting the costs of the custody study equally and affirm on this issue as well.