Court Opinion

ID: 9377683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 16:05:15.921341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.504290
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1552
                              Filed March 8, 2023

ROBERT J. STANLEY,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SIERRA W. WINTERS,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal    from   the   Iowa    District   Court   for   Plymouth      County,

Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.

      Sierra Winters appeals from a custody decree. AFFIRMED.

      John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant

      Benjamin J. Folladori of Marberry Law Fm, P.C., Urbandale, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
                                         2

BULLER, Judge.

       Sierra Winters appeals from a custody decree establishing legal custody

and physical care of her children with Robert Stanley. Sierra challenges the district

court’s decision to place physical care with Robert.         We affirm, finding that

placement with Robert is in the children’s best interests.

       I.     Background Facts & Proceedings

       Sierra and Robert are the never-married parents of two children: one born

in 2014 and one born in 2016. They were in a relationship from roughly 2012 to

2015 and lived in Arizona during that time. They separated shortly before their

younger child was born.

       Robert now resides in Illinois with his wife and nine-year-old stepdaughter.

He attends community college and studies exercise science, with the goal of

converting his current part-time fitness work into a full-time position after

graduation.

       Sierra resides in Iowa, approximately eight hours away from Robert. At the

time of trial, Sierra was going through a divorce from her husband. Sierra has

been diagnosed with several psychiatric conditions, including depression, anxiety,

post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. She attends therapy and

takes medication for these conditions. Sierra works in pet-care sales, earning an

hourly wage with potential for commissions.

       The older child has had some educational difficulties and benefits from an

emotional support animal and therapy. The younger child also attends therapy

following sexual abuse perpetrated by Sierra’s fiancé’s teenage son.
                                         3

       Sierra historically served as the children’s primary caretaker. After she and

Robert separated, Sierra moved to Iowa without notifying Robert. Sierra was “quite

controlling” in limiting Robert’s visitation and frequently imposed arbitrary terms

and conditions on his access to the children. As the district court put it, “By all

accounts and testimony, Sierra did not behave in the manner of a joint custody

parent with physical care.” This behavior included Sierra refusing to share basic

information with Robert, saying she would only share information if ordered to do

so by the court. Sierra told Robert he did not have “a right to any information

regarding the kids,” and she would also sometimes refuse to respond to phone

calls and text messages.

       One area in which Sierra willfully withheld information from Robert

concerned the sexual abuse of the younger child by Sierra’s fiancé’s son. Sierra

allowed the teenage abuser to supervise and babysit the children on a number of

occasions. She did not share any information with Robert concerning the sexual

abuse until compelled to do so through discovery in this case. Sierra also failed to

disclose that the children were attending therapy, both related to the trauma of

sexual abuse and for other reasons (including statements relating to self-harm).

She admitted to withholding this information because she thought it would reflect

poorly on her as a parent and be used against her in court. Despite this, Sierra

posted about the sexual abuse on Facebook when she thought it was to her or her

fiancé’s benefit.

       Sierra told the children that Robert was “trying to take them away from” her,

and she retaliated against Robert for initiating these proceedings.        On one

occasion, she would not allow the children to travel with their clothes and personal
                                          4

belongings in a bid to force Robert to make extra purchases. On another, Sierra

told Robert that she would not allow him to see the children at all until the court

made a decision. On still another occasion, Sierra repeatedly threatened to “file

harassment charges” when Robert made inquiries about the children’s medical

care. For his part, there is no indication Robert ever spoke negatively about Sierra

to her or in front of the children.

         At trial, Sierra expressed some regret over her conduct toward Robert and

the children. The district court expressly found that the explanations Sierra offered

for her behavior were not credible. Based in part on these credibility findings, the

district court placed physical care with Robert, ordered joint legal custody,

established a visitation schedule, and ordered the payment of child support. The

district court found Robert’s home more stable than Sierra’s. In particular the court

contrasted Sierra’s more transient lifestyle (over the last four years, Sierra lived in

six different places and worked eight different jobs, placing the children in at least

three different school districts) with Robert’s stability and experience working with

special-needs children. The court also noted the children appeared to thrive in

Robert’s care, which it posited may be due to the social influence of Robert’s

stepdaughter in the home.

         Sierra appeals.1

         II.    Discussion

         On appeal, Sierra argues that physical care should have been awarded to

her rather than Robert.

1   Robert waived filing a brief on appeal. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(3).
                                          5

       We review this claim de novo. Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa

Ct. App. 2020). We give weight to the district court’s fact findings, especially on

credibility, given its exclusive ability “to listen to and observe the parties and

witnesses.” McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010).

       Although this action is governed by Iowa Code chapter 600B (2021), we

look to section 598.41 to determine physical care. See Iowa Code § 600B.40(1)

(providing “section 598.41 shall apply” to chapter 600B proceedings). In section

598.41, the General Assembly set forth a series of nonexclusive factors to guide

our consideration. Our case law sets forth similar factors. In re Marriage of Winter,

223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).            “The objective of a physical care

determination is to place the children in the environment most likely to bring them

to health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of

Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). Our overriding consideration “is the

best interests of the child.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o).

       While we afford weight to the parent who historically acted as the primary

caregiver, this factor is not dispositive. See Flick v. Stoneburner, No. 15-1930,

2016 WL 2743449, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016). It is undisputed that Sierra

was historically the primary caregiver. But we also agree with the district court that

this was in part a consequence of Sierra’s conduct, including her moving away

from Robert (to Iowa) without any notice and restricting his access to the children.

Given the facts of this case, Sierra’s historical role does not outweigh other

considerations.

       Like the district court, we find that Robert provides a more stable home

environment for the children and credit his work with special-needs children as part
                                           6

of the reason why the children thrive in his care. See Winter, 223 N.W.2d at 166

(considering “[t]he nature of each proposed environment, including its stability and

wholesomeness”).

       We also share the district court’s deep concern about Sierra’s unwillingness

to co-parent, her refusal to communicate with Robert, and her attempts to poison

the children against him. We put particular emphasis on Sierra’s failure to disclose

the sexual abuse and her rationale for withholding the information. The district

court put things mildly when it observed, “This is an admission that does not reflect

favorably upon [Sierra] as a parent.” Withholding this information left Robert in the

dark about the child’s behavior, allowing him only in hindsight to realize that the

child “wandering around the house” late at night may have been connected to a

serious traumatic event. We believe Sierra’s selfish motivations regarding this

issue are emblematic of her broader behavior toward Robert, which convinces us

she would continue to disparage Robert and undermine his relationship with the

children if they remained in her physical care. Robert, on the other hand, has been

supportive of Sierra in front of the children and will facilitate her relationship with

the children in the future.

       Like at trial, much of Sierra’s brief on appeal is spent offering excuses or

justifications for her behavior. We ordinarily defer to the district court’s credibility

findings, and we do so here with regard to its finding that her trial testimony in this

vein was not credible. Even if we were not required to give deference, we would

come to the same conclusion. Sierra has not demonstrated any insight into how

her conduct toward Robert undermined his relationship with the children and likely

caused harm within the family unit. We reject Sierra’s contention on appeal “that
                                       7

she will encourage the relationship between Robert and the children,” as she has

spent years doing the opposite.

      AFFIRMED.