Opinion ID: 1829548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disclosure of Parentage

Text: The district court also determined that Samantha should be informed that Charles is her father before kindergarten begins. It concluded Samantha's best interest dictated a court-imposed timeline for telling her of her true lineage. Rebecca argues that this ruling interferes with the family's autonomy. We have recognize[d] that the government is ill-equipped to dictate the details of social interaction among family members. Olds v. Olds, 356 N.W.2d 571, 574 (Iowa 1984). This statement was made in relation to court-ordered, grandparent visitation. [T]he parenting right is a fundamental liberty interest that is protected against unwarranted state intrusion. Id. Other jurisdictions have also recognized the autonomy of the family in child matters. The trial court does not have the responsibility or the authority or the ability to create ideal circumstances for the family. In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wash.2d 39, 940 P.2d 1362, 1371 (1997). Moreover, the best interests test is not intended to allow the court to micromanage a child's custody from the entry of the final judgment until the child becomes an adult.... [T]hese decisions should usually be made by the parents in private. Chant v. Chant, 725 So.2d 445, 448 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1999). We can find no instance where we have upheld a court-ordered timeline for telling a child of her ancestry. Similarly, there is no statutory authority to do this. The court is able to establish paternity and visitation by viewing what is in a child's best interest, but this does not mean that it should necessarily dictate when the child must be told of her paternity. Accordingly, upon our de novo review we affirm the trial court's establishment of a relationship and visitation schedule for Charles and Samantha. The district court did not use an improper standard or impermissibly rely on section 598.41. We believe the presumption in section 598.41 is a relevant factor among many for determining what is in a child's best interest. Clearly, if such a preference is not within a child's best interest, it would be inappropriate to grant maximum visitation. Looking at all facts present in the record, the visitation schedule of less than maximum visitation is in Samantha's best interest at this time. We modify the court's determination regarding when Samantha should be told of her parentage. Although we may agree that she needs to be told sooner rather than later, we leave the decision to Rebecca as the sole custodial parent. The parties shall be responsible for their own attorney fees. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the appellant. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.