Opinion
No. 3-067 / 02-1458.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, CARL D. BAKER, Judge.
Jeremy Mersman appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for primary physical care of his daughter. AFFIRMED.
Clark McNeal of Barker, McNeal, Wiese Holt, Iowa Falls, for appellant.
Michael Smith and Lawrence Cutler of Craig Smith, L.L.P., Eldora, for appellee.
Heard by ZIMMER, P.J., and HECHT and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Jeremy Mersman and Sara Farmer are the parents of Tiffany Mersman, born out of wedlock on March 9, 2001. At the time of Tiffany's birth, Jeremy and Sara resided together. However, Sara and Tiffany moved out in October of 2001 and took up residence with Sara's paramour, Travis Ziesman. At that time, Jeremy moved back to his parents' home. On December 19, 2001, Jeremy filed a petition seeking primary care of Tiffany. In February of 2002, the parties stipulated to joint custody and shared physical care until the trial on August 27, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the district court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree awarding joint legal custody to Sara and Jeremy and designating Sara as Tiffany's primary care provider. Jeremy appeals.
Our review of a custody order is de novo, and our primary consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273, 276 (Iowa 1995). In determining what is in the best interests of the child, we give considerable weight to the judgment of the trial judge, who has had the benefit of hearing and observing the parties firsthand. Id.
After our de novo review of the record of this case, we note that both parties have been guilty of poor decision-making in their young lives. Both parties have admitted to illegal drug use and have not always put the needs of their daughter above their own desires and impulses. In this close case, we give appropriate weight to the credibility determinations of the district court. The district court's findings and conclusions are well reasoned, and we adopt them as our own. We therefore affirm the district court's determination that it is in Tiffany's best interests to be placed in the primary care of Sara.
Sara has been Tiffany's primary caretaker throughout her life. This fact is supported by the observations of Tiffany's day care provider who described a close bond between Sara and Tiffany. Although Sara has made serious mistakes regarding her involvement in illegal drug use in the past, she separated herself from the negative influence of Travis Zeisman who allegedly provided drugs for her. She successfully completed drug treatment. We find nothing in the record that causes us to question the district court's assessment of the credibility of Sara's commitment to remain drug-free and pursue her education.
We share the district court's concern about Jeremy's ability to care for Tiffany independently. Jeremy has never been the primary provider of Tiffany's care. At the time of trial he was employed as an over-the-road truck driver who was away from home for extended periods of time. Although he testified that he had several available employment options which would be more compatible with active parenting of a young child, he had not exercised any of them as of the time of trial. Jeremy's tendency to respond to conflict with violent outbursts also gives us pause as we adjudicate the physical care issue in this case.
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the district court's placement of Tiffany's physical care with her mother, Sara.