Opinion
No. 3-259 / 02-1852
Filed July 10, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Smith, Judge.
Linda Yulga appeals from the physical care provision of the district court's decree dissolving her marriage to John Yulga. AFFIRMED.
Michael Koury, Jr. and Kelly Cunningham of Bush, Motto, Creen Koury, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Arthur Buzzell, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
John and Linda Yulga were married on July 11, 1998. Their only child, Matthew, was born on December 5, 1998. In April of 2002, Linda filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Thereafter, the district court filed a decree of dissolution awarding physical care of Matthew to John. Linda appeals.
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 note that both parents love and are dedicated to Shawn. Shawn is fortunate that both John and Linda are capable of and willing to provide a nurturing and loving home for their son. The cause of Shawn's good fortune, however, is precisely what makes the physical care decision so difficult in this case. In this close case, we give appropriate weight to the judgment of the district court. The district court's findings are well-reasoned, and we adopt them as our own. We conclude, as did the district court, that it is in Shawn's best interest to be placed with John.
At the time of trial, John was able to provide a more stable living situation for Shawn. His commute to work was short and gave him more time to be available for Shawn. Linda, on the other hand, was still in transition and living with her parents at the time of trial. She had a long commute which decreased the amount of time she could spend with Shawn each day. Although her work schedule permitted her to have Fridays off, she was not able to take advantage of the extra time with Shawn, finding it necessary to put Shawn in daycare so she could accomplish chores.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court's placement of Shawn's physical care with his father, John.