Court Opinion

ID: 9861372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:55:59.125703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:15.706834
License: Public Domain

Moore, J.
— I respectfully and most sincerely dissent. The *1275majority opinion ignores well established legal propositions and fails to consider many important facts which are in the record.
Our first and governing consideration in this habeas corpus case involving the custody of James Brent Kouris, born May 27, 1962, is his welfare and best interest. No citation of authority is needed. See Rule of Civil Procedure 344(f) 15.
Defendant’s first and governing consideration should be the same but she alleges in her answer the child is illegitimate. She pursued this attack at the trial with no competent evidence. To this she added a most vicious attempt of character assassination against her sister, Ilo Wynn. Such attempt failed. It demonstrates defendant’s attitude to win at any cost.
The majority opinion is unfair and unsound in several respects. It mentions Ilo Wynn, the grandmother, had been married three times. Thus indicating she had three husbands. She divorced and then remarried her first husband. He is the father of her three children. Her second marriage was unsatisfactory and lasted only two years. Her children were still young. With such a load she not only worked but cared for her family. For 12 years before the trial she worked at the Firestone tire plant in Des Moines.
The statement in the majority opinion that she is a good woman is amply supported by the record. Her fellow workers so testified. The 2000 union members at the plant elected her secretary of the organization. Her good reputation is well established among her friends and fellow workers. No one casts any reflection upon her or the unmarried man with whom she keeps company. Apparently the majority thinks 46-year-old grandmothers should take to their rocking chair. There is no evidence of any misconduct on Ilo’s part except defendant’s testimony that Ilo made certain admissions. These are denied by her.
Her brother, James Cooper, testified: “I think Mrs. Wynn would make a good mother. I don’t know why she wouldn’t make a good mother as any you know. I don’t know anything detrimental about Mrs. Wynn.” Another brother, Richard, testified: “My sister, Mrs. Wynn, so far she has been just as nice a sister you could have, as far as that goes. I am not classifying her *1276down in tbe dumps or anything else. I think she should make a good mother to the child.”
Defendant and some other members of the family testified Ilo had made admissions concerning immoral conduct during 1950 or 1951. Such statements were denied by Ilo. The majority opinion gives no weight to this charge against Ilo. With this I agree but it again shows defendant’s attitude. Ilo and defendant were friends before this controversy arose.
The grandmother paid the expenses incident to Jimmie’s birth. She continued to help financially and was in close contact with the child at all times. Ilo took Jimmie to visit the relatives on many occasions. Without such visits defendant had no contacts with the child until January 1964. When the mother found she was unable to care for Jimmie she called Ilo. The grandmother immediately made the trip to Davenport. While Jimmie was in defendant’s home the grandmother visited him almost every weekend. She bought him clothing and toys. She testified she offered to pay defendant for Jimmie’s care. On one occasion she took Jimmie from defendant’s home in Grinnell to see a circus in Des Moines. The grandmother has shown real love of Jimmie. This is undenied.
Defendant during the short time with Jimmie in her home no doubt took good care of him. The two lived alone. Why defendant’s second daughter left the home at age 17 and was living-alone in Grinnell at trial time was not disclosed. Ilo has a well furnished adequate home prepared and waiting for her grandson. Ilo’s age as compared to that of defendant is an important factor.
The majority opinion cites and discusses several custody eases involving natural parents. Kay, Jimmie’s mother, is not asking for custody. She requests her child’s custody be given to the grandmother. Kay has made mistakes in the past but there is no evidence of improper care of Jimmie. Her request should be considered. She has shown great concern for the welfare of her son.
Though a parent’s request that custody be given to a certain person is not controlling or binding upon the court, it nevertheless is regarded as of great weight and entitled to consideration. *1277Jensen v. Sorenson, 211 Iowa 354, 361, 362, 233 N.W. 717, 721; Lancey v. Shelley, 232 Iowa 178, 186, 2 N.W.2d 781, 785, and citations.
In Rice v. Messingham, 244 Iowa 111, 116, 55 N.W.2d 925, 927, we say: “In balancing the conflicting claims [for custody of a minor child] the natural claims of blood should not be disregarded or lightly cast aside.” The majority opinion does violence to this good rule.
The last paragraph of the majority opinion recognizes the necessity of the mother’s and grandmother’s love and care for Jimmie and attempts to providé visitation rights. No authority for such a provision in a habeas corpus case is cited. In Childers v. Childres, 257 Iowa 1132, 136 N.W.2d 268, we held the issue of visitation not having been decided by the tidal court was not properly before us. The majority opinion now holds otherwise. This legal question need not be decided. After what has happened in this case it is almost certain Jimmie will never know his mother and grandmother. This is not doing equity.
I would sustain the writ.
ThoRNTON, J., joins in this dissent.