Opinion ID: 1705431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Physical Care of the Children

Text: Iowa law distinguishes custody from physical care. Custody concerns the legal rights and responsibilities toward the child, including decisions affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction. Iowa Code § 598.1(5) (2005). Physical care, on the other hand, is the right and responsibility to maintain a home for the minor child and provide for the routine care of the child. Id. § 598.1(7). When considering the issue of physical care, the child's best interest is the overriding consideration. We are guided by the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) as well as those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). If joint physical care is not appropriate, the court must choose one parent to be the primary caretaker, awarding the other parent visitation rights. In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Iowa 2007). Ted argues the district court should have awarded him physical care so the children may continue to live in the Barcelona Terrace home, which was awarded to him. Additionally, Ted argues he is better suited to be the primary physical caretaker because he spends less time working in comparison to Michele. The district court found both parents to be suitable caretakers for the children. We agree. The record is replete with evidence of both parties' love and devotion to their children. At the end of the trial, the court noted the conundrum it faced in deciding who should be awarded physical care because both parties are great parents. The district court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and concluded primary care should be awarded to Michele. The district court awarded Ted the following visitation schedule: every third weekend (Friday 5 p.m. through Sunday 5 p.m.) and weekly mid-week visitation (Sunday 5 p.m. through Tuesday morning while school is in session and 5 p.m. when it is not). We see no reason to disturb the district court's decision. Ted conceded Michele is a competent caretaker and acknowledged plans to ramp up his law practice. Alternatively, Ted claims the district court erred by not awarding the parties joint physical care of the children. Under Iowa Code section 598.41(5)( a ), the court may award joint physical care . . . upon the request of either parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child. Contrary to Ted's assertion on appeal, this passage does not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, ___ (Iowa 2007). Rather, our statutory scheme simply makes joint physical care a viable option if it is in the child's best interest. We recently said [t]he critical question in deciding whether joint physical care is . . . appropriate is whether the parties can communicate effectively on the myriad of issues that arise daily in the routine care of a child. Hynick, 727 N.W.2d at 580. The parties dispute whether Ted requested joint physical care in the original proceedings. Ted's answer to Michele's petition sought the parties' joint shared physical custody of their children. In his opening statement at trial, Ted's attorney stated the court needed to decide whether shared physical custody is appropriate in this case. Since the parties previously agreed to joint legal custody, we find it obvious Ted was requesting joint physical care even though he did not use those exact words. Moreover, the term physical connotes something more than the right to make legal decisions. We have never held a party must use magic words to convey a desire for joint physical care. Nor are we interested in creating a trap for the unwary with respect to something so paramount. Because the court did not award joint physical care, it normally would be required to specifically explain why joint physical care is not in the children's best interest. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)( a ). However, no specific finding was required in the present case because Ted abandoned his request for joint physical care during the trial. In his testimony, Ted asked for primary physical care of the children. He stated joint physical care was not appropriate due to Michele's tremendous amount of unresolved anger towards [him]. Similarly, Michele testified joint physical care was not appropriate because communication with Ted was nearly impossible. [2] She also stated she believed joint physical care would be too disruptive and worried Ted would not provide a structured environment for the children. In sum, both parties conceded joint physical care was not preferable. Given the parties' apparent difficulty in communicating, joint physical care would have been suitable. See Hynick, 727 N.W.2d at 580 (finding joint physical care inappropriate due to the parties' lack of mutual respect and inability to communicate).