Opinion
No. 1-918 / 01-0700.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, BRUCE ZAGER, Judge.
Danielle Robison appeals from the district court's order granting primary physical care of the parties' minor child to his father, Stacy McFarlane. AFFIRMED.
Craig Ament, Waterloo, for appellant.
Mark Mershon, Cedar Falls, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Danielle Robison appeals from the district court's order granting primary physical care of the parties' minor child to his father, Stacy McFarlane. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS .
Stacy McFarlane and Danielle Robison are the unmarried parents of Jarrett T. McFarlane, born August 21, 1996. Neither party has any other children. At the time of trial, Stacy was twenty-six years old, Danielle was twenty-three, and Jarrett was four and a half.
The parties met when Stacy was twenty years of age and Danielle was seventeen. A few months after they met, they moved in together. They resided in Waterloo for approximately one year and then separated. Following their separation, Danielle moved back to her father's home in Dike and Stacy moved in with his parents.
Shortly after Danielle returned to her father's home, she discovered she was pregnant. After Jarrett's birth, Danielle maintained her residence with her father for several months. During this time, Stacy had almost daily contact with Jarrett. Thereafter, Danielle and Jarrett moved in with Stacy and his parents.
In August 1997, the parties began cohabitating in Cedar Falls. They resided together from August 1997 until January 2000, at which time Danielle moved to an apartment in Dike. She continued living there until October 2000 when she moved in with her fiancé. Stacy has continued to reside in the home the parties occupied together in Cedar Falls. At the time of trial Danielle was still living in the residence of her fiancé.
In August 2000, Stacy filed this action to establish primary care, visitation and child support. Following trial in February 2001, the district court awarded Stacy and Danielle joint custody with primary physical placement with Stacy. Danielle appeals from the district court's decree contending the court erred in awarding Stacy physical care of Jarrett.
II. SCOPE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW .
Our review of a custody order is de novo and our primary consideration is the best interest of the children . In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273, 276 (Iowa 1995); In re Guardianship of Knell, 537 N.W.2d 778, 780 (1995). 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 first-hand. Kleist, 538 N.W.2d at 278.
The controlling consideration in determining custody is the best interest of the child. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(15). There is no inference favoring one party as opposed to the other in deciding which one should have custody. See In re Marriage of Bowen, 219 N.W.2d 683, 688 (Iowa 1974). We determine each case on its own facts to decide which parent can minister more effectively to the long-range interests of the child. In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1974). The critical issue is determining which parent will do better in raising the child; gender is irrelevant. See In re Marriage of Ullerich, 367 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Iowa Ct.App. 1985). The criteria governing custody decisions are the same regardless of whether the parties are dissolving their marriage or are unwed. Yarolem v. Ledford, 529 N.W.2d 297, 298 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
In so far as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, the court should make an award of custody which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents and which will encourage the parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child. See Iowa Code§ 598.41(1). To effectuate that policy, the court must consider the willingness of each party to allow the child access to the other. In re Marriage of Burham, 283 N.W.2d 269, 276 (Iowa 1979).
III. THE MERITS .
We begin by agreeing with the trial court's assessment that either Stacy or Danielle would be a suitable primary caretaker for Jarrett. It is clear from the record that both parties genuinely care for Jarrett and would be able to adequately provide for his needs. Both parents have positive and appropriate life goals for Jarrett. Both parties have been involved as caregivers for Jarrett throughout his life. Both parties are gainfully employed and are able to provide an appropriate environment to raise Jarrett. Both parties are engaged to be married and living with their partners. Their new relationships appear to be extremely positive ones for the parties and for Jarrett.
We acknowledge this is a close case. Nevertheless, we agree with the trial court's decision to place Jarrett in the primary physical care of his father. The district court concluded Stacy provided significant structure and stability for Jarrett at the time of the parties' separation in January 2000. The court also concluded that Stacy's substantial extended family support system was important to Jarrett's long-term best interests.
The trial court also concluded that Stacy would be the parent better able to foster and support Jarrett's relationship with the non-custodial parent. The court expressed concern that after the parties separated, Danielle made unilateral decisions affecting Jarrett's well being without consulting Stacy. The trial court also believed that Danielle caused some unnecessary problems with visitation. Finally, the trial court believed that moving Jarrett from the home and neighborhood where he has resided most of his life would not be in his long-term best interest.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Jarrett's best interest will be served by placing his physical care with Stacy. The trial court's decree is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.