Opinion
23-1103
03-27-2024
NOAH RICHARD KNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATHENA SOUMAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf &McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant. Athena Soumas, Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah E. Crane, Judge.
A father appeals from an order placing the parties' child in their joint physical care and setting a shared parenting schedule. AFFIRMED.
Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf &McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.
Athena Soumas, Des Moines, self-represented appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ.
LANGHOLZ, JUDGE.
Noah Knight and Athena Soumas have a three-year-old daughter together. They never married and both live in Des Moines. For some time ("as long as [Knight] can remember"), they have been sharing care of their daughter without any court involvement. Knight has cared for her every weekend-from Friday evening until Monday morning-and on alternating weeks, his care begins a day earlier on Thursday evening. He also cares for a son from another relationship on the weekends. According to Knight, Soumas has asked about adjusting the schedule to alternate weekends. But he did not agree because he wanted to stick with the schedule that the children were used to.
In March 2023, Knight filed this proceeding to establish paternity and set his child support obligations under Iowa Code chapter 600B (2023). He also sought joint legal custody and joint physical care and proposed that the parties continue the same parenting schedule. Soumas did not appear or otherwise participate in the district court proceeding. So Knight eventually asked for a default judgment.
After hearing testimony from Knight, the district court granted the request. As relevant here, the court awarded the parties joint legal custody and joint physical care. But it rejected Knight's proposed parenting schedule as not in their daughter's best interest. Instead, the court set a 2-2-3 schedule in which Soumas would care for their daughter on Mondays and Tuesdays, Knight on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and the parties would alternate weekends. The court explained from the bench:
I understand right now you're . . . doing every weekend, but once the child's in school, basically the weekend is the "fun time," and during the week is the "get the kid to school, do your homework when you
get home" time, and so . . . typically, I do every other weekend unless there's a parent who's always working weekends or something so there was some reason why they weren't able to exercise weekends.... So on this record I'm not going to award one party every weekend. Because this order is going to be in place until the child's 18 unless there's some . . . change in circumstance.
Knight moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court based its decision on "the perceived fairness to" Soumas rather than "the best interests of the child" and asked again for his initial proposed parenting schedule. The district court denied the motion and clarified its reasoning:
The Court does not find it is in the best interest of the child to award every single weekend to one parent, particularly when a child is in school during the week, absent a parent's unavailability due to work schedule or some other justification to support an every weekend schedule.
The court also reiterated that the parties could mutually agree to variations from the ordered schedule. Knight appeals-challenging only the parenting schedule and again seeking his proposed schedule. Soumas continues to not participate.
We review the physical-care provisions of a custody order under chapter 600B de novo. See Phillips v. Davis-Spurling, 541 N.W.2d 846, 847 (Iowa 1995); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We give weight to the district court's fact findings, but they do not bind us. McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). And our paramount concern "is the best interests of the child." Phillips, 541 N.W.2d at 847.
We apply the same best interest standard under chapter 600B as in dissolution proceedings. See Iowa Code § 600B.40(2) (providing that Iowa Code section 598.41 "shall apply" when "determining the visitation or custody arrangements").
Knight makes no argument that his proposed parenting schedule is in his daughter's best interest. Instead, he focuses solely on attacking the motives of the district court in ordering the alternating weekend schedule-contending that the court "act[ed] as an advocate for the interests of" Soumas rather than in the best interest of the child. He makes two arguments about why this is so-despite the district court's express findings that its decision was based on the best interest of the child. Neither holds up.
First, Knight argues that the court's rationale of sharing the "fun time" of weekends "does not really speak to the best interests of the child, but rather the interests of the parents." But we have long recognized that whenever possible, parenting time should not be segregated between weekdays and weekends. See In re Marriage of Ertmann, 376 N.W.2d 918, 922 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985) (reasoning that both parents should get "the chance to become involved in the child's day-today activity as well as weekend fun"); In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 359 (affirming switch from every-weekend to alternating-weekend parenting time as a "major improvement," reasoning that the weekday parent "is entitled to be more than a servant to the children, entitled to enjoy weekend time with them"). This well-rounded involvement in the child's weekday and weekend life benefits the development of a strong parent-child relationship and is an appropriate factor when considering the child's best interest. See Ertmann, 376 N.W.2d at 922; see also Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (requiring the court to generally "assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents" when deciding physical care issues).
Second, Knight argues that permitting the parties to mutually agree to variations of the court-ordered schedule is somehow "a complete dereliction of the court's duty to maintain the best interests of the child" or "put[ting] the personal interests of the party in default [(Soumas)] ahead of the reasonable request of the prevailing party [(Knight)]." But when awarding joint physical care, "the court can allow the parties to exercise additional visitation or parenting time as they may agree," so long as it sets some "fall-back schedule" in case the parties cannot agree. Watson v. Ollendieck, No. 22-1350, 2023 WL 3335602, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. May 10, 2023). Indeed, we have repeatedly affirmed-or imposed ourselves- provisions permitting variations by mutual agreement of the parties. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464, 472 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020); Ryan v. Wright, No. 17-1375, 2018 WL 2246882, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 16, 2018); In re Marriage of Muell, 408 N.W.2d 774, 777 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). And flexibility and cooperation between the parents in exercising parenting time is in their child's best interest because it is likely to provide the "maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents," Iowa Code § 598.1(1), and promotes a healthier relationship between the parents. See id. § 598.41(3)(c).
On our de novo review-and with no argument from Knight explaining why his preferred schedule better serves the interests of their daughter-we agree with the district court that the alternating weekend parenting schedule is in their daughter's best interest. But like the district court, we again emphasize that the parties may adjust this parenting schedule by mutual agreement. In his testimony, Knight described remarkable cooperation between Soumas and him in their sharing of physical care until now. The entry and affirmance of this formal custody order does not change the continued need for that joint effort by both parents to focus on the best interest of their daughter.
AFFIRMED.