From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masuen v. Means

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. 2-964 / 02-0840

Filed February 12, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, John P. Duffy, Judge.

Jessica Means challenges the district court's order changing custody of her child from her to the child's father, Ted Masuen. AFFIRMED.

Becky Knutson of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors Roberts, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Teresa O'Brien, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by Habhab, Harris, and Snell, Senior Judges.

Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).


Experienced judges are nearly unanimous in undertaking child custody cases with a profound sense of humility. It is hard to imagine litigation more breathtaking in its importance, or more agonizing in its difficulty. Stakes of course could not be higher. And, even though the litigants routinely present diametrically opposing versions of the facts, they are almost inevitably passionate in their conviction that their version is true. It is a good bet that neither litigant is as good as he or she contends, nor as bad as contended by the other litigant.

Controlling legal propositions are undisputed and clear. "Cogent reasons" are required for a change of a custody order. A person seeking a change in physical custody must show the ability to administer more effectively the long-range best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Iowa 1983); In re Marriage of Mayfield, 577 N.W.2d 872, 873 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). These cases, and a host of others, point out that custody is not awarded as a reward for parents' good conduct, nor is denied as punishment for bad conduct. Even so, litigants sometimes get the impression that custody disputes are resolved on the basis of conduct that meets with the judge's disapproval. This is because irresponsible conduct by a custodial parent can portend serious harm for the child. A judge weighing this factor must be sure the perceived irresponsibility is a real threat to the child, and not merely a controversial lifestyle the judge would not choose. Many custody decisions come down to a determination of whether a disapproved lifestyle poses an actual threat to the child. The lifestyle involved here does.

In the order challenged by this appeal, the district court changed custody of a child from her mother, Jessica Means, to her father, Ted Masuen. Jessica and Ted never married and had discontinued their relationship by the time their daughter, Alicia, was born. About that time Ted began a relationship with Cary, now his wife and mother of his second daughter who was eleven months at the time of trial. Ted and Cary have established a stable home.

Ted's paternity of Alicia was fixed by a consent order entered on the parties' stipulation January 3, 1997. By this time Ted and Cary were married. Under the decree Jessica was given custody of Alicia. Ted was awarded visitation rights and ordered to pay support. He has exercised his visitation rights and is current on his support. Jessica completed a technical college course and holds an associate degree as an occupational therapy assistant. Ted has a four-year college degree.

When Alicia was born, both parents had much maturing to do. We agree with the trial court's view that Ted has made decidedly more progress. The court was especially troubled because Jessica resided in her home, not only with Alicia, but successively with two boyfriends to whom she was not married. She apparently has no intention of marrying the current one. Jessica also allowed other adult men to reside in the home. She has moved four times. Alicia sleeps with Jessica, even when Jessica has a man sleeping with her. Though Jessica denies sexual activity occurs with Alicia in bed, we view the situation as entirely irresponsible.

Alicia was exposed to real danger in Jessica's home when Jessica permitted a woman friend to have an affair with another adult male who resided in the home. An angry confrontation between the woman's friend and her husband resulted in criminal charges being filed. Some would contend this confrontation should not be a factor in this dispute because Jessica was not a participant in it. It is a factor however because the issue is not Jessica's deportment but the environment she provided for the child. The court was also troubled by Alicia's exposure to an adult male friend of Jessica's current boyfriend. Jessica is not stable.

Ted is. He is regularly employed, earning a monthly net income of $2490. Alicia has a comfortable relationship with Cary. Ted has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the burden previously outlined. There has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the custodial order. The trial court was correct in ordering the change in custody.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Masuen v. Means

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 12, 2003
662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

Masuen v. Means

Case Details

Full title:TED MASUEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JESSICA MEANS, Respondent-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 12, 2003

Citations

662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)