Court Opinion

ID: 9677536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:54:41.941972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:59.378687
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
I would award primary physical care of Megan to Ann.
In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 355-56 (Iowa 1983), and in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). All factors bear on the “first and governing consideration,” the court’s determination of what will be in the long-term best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 424 (Iowa 1984). The critical issue in determining the best interests of the child is which parent will do better in raising the child. In re Marriage of Ullerich, 367 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Iowa App.1985). Gender is irrelevant, and neither parent should have a greater burden than the other in attempting to gain custody in a dissolution proceeding. Id. In order to insure continuity in the children’s lives, we consider allowing the children to remain with a parent who has been a primary caretaker. In re Marriage of Fennell, 485 N.W.2d 863, 865 (Iowa App.1992).
The record is replete with testimony indicating Ann has served as Megan’s primary caregiver since her birth. Following her *626maternity leave, Ann cared for Megan until she left for work at 2:30 each afternoon. She arranged for and transported Megan to her child care provider each afternoon. During this time, Lloyd typically worked 7:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days per week. Ann arranged for Megan’s preschool and alone attended preschool orientation. Ann requested a change to day shifts so she would be able to care for Megan in the evenings. She arranged gymnastics classes for Megan and regularly attended parents observation nights and programs, again without Lloyd accompanying her. When Ann separated from Lloyd, she moved Megan with her.
From the record, it appears Lloyd’s work responsibilities and devotion to his mother interfered with his time with Megan and Ann. It appears he was unwilling to refrain from eating daily noon meals with his mother and was unwilling to allow Ann to schedule an earlier evening meal in order that they may eat together as a family. Lloyd often traveled separately to family holidays, arriving late and leaving early. Lloyd rarely accompanied Ann and Megan on family vacations; even in winter he claimed he had winter farm chores. Lloyd did not attend parent/teacher conferences. In addition, the district court found Lloyd was not likely to plan activities specifically structured for Megan but was more likely to include her in his own activities, including socializing with his friends. We do not believe socializing with Lloyd’s friends in lieu of structured, age-appropriate activities is in Megan’s best interests.
In support of its decision to award physical care of Megan to Lloyd, the district court stated it was forced to consider “fine points” in making the custody award. However, the substance of the fine points is not evident from the order or the record. The district court stated both parties were “very fine, upstanding individuals and highly qualified to fulfill their parenting responsibilities.”
I am unable to support the majority’s affirmance of the award of physical care of Megan to Lloyd. The record simply does not support that conclusion. It is clear to me that Lloyd’s interest in parenting Megan began with the parties’ separation. For the eight preceding years, Ann successfully provided for all of Megan’s basic needs. I would award physical care of Megan to Ann.
SCHLEGEL, J., joins dissent.