Opinion
No. 2-865 / 02-0246.
Filed February 28, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Mary J. Sokolovske, Judge.
Krista Hersom appeals from a decree of dissolution awarding primary physical care of her minor children to their father, Jeff Hersom. AFFIRMED.
Bradley De Jong of Klay, Veldhuizen, Bindner, DeJong Jacobsma, P.L.C., Orange City, for appellant.
Daniel Pluim, Orange City, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Krista Hersom appeals from a decree of dissolution awarding primary physical care of her minor children to their father, Jeff Hersom. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Krista and Jeff were married on October 14, 1995. They have two children, Sydney, born April 9, 1997, and Tyler, born May 6, 1999. Krista filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Sioux County District Court on March 30, 2001. The district court awarded temporary custody of the two children to Jeff. Trial was held on November 2, 2001, and December 13, 2001, and the district court entered its decree of dissolution on January 22, 2002. In its decree, the district court awarded primary physical care of the two children to Jeff Hersom. Krista appeals from the custody provisions of the decree.
II. Standard of Review. Our review of this case is de novo. In re Marriage of Roberts, 545 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. In re Marriage of Wessel, 520 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
The governing consideration in deciding the issue of physical care in a dissolution of marriage is the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of Ihle, 577 N.W.2d 64, 69 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Our supreme court has identified a host of factors to weigh in determining the best interests of the children in each particular case. See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). The critical inquiry is to determine which parent will do the best job in raising the children. In re Marriage of Ullerich, 367 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Iowa Ct.App. 1985).
III. Analysis. After a careful review of the record, we find it is in the best interests of the children to affirm the award of primary care to Jeff Hersom. Both parties have acquired a college education. Both parties are fully employed and able to provide suitable housing for the children. Both parties have a family support network in place. Both parties are willing and able to provide adequate care for their children. Unfortunately both parties have also demonstrated poor decision-making in the past. Krista has incurred $40,000 in credit card debt. Jeff was fired and has theft charges pending against him for improper use of a company gas card. Both parties admit to having affairs during the marriage, and both were involved in an incident involving suicide threats and a gun. Both have attempted to use the children to manipulate or hurt the other. However, both parties have expressed remorse for their actions and claim to have learned from the required Children Coping with Divorce class the importance of placing the children's needs ahead of their own.
We believe this is a very close case on the merits. In close cases, we give weight to the trial court's findings. In re Marriage of Burkle, 525 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Where neither parent has markedly superior parenting qualities and both parents are capable of providing adequate care and equal affection, the trial court's ruling on primary care should be upheld. In re Marriage of Sherwood, 240 N.W.2d 669 (Iowa 1976); In re Marriage of Forest, 201 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Iowa 1972); In re Marriage of Toedter, 473 N.W.2d 233, 234 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991); In re Marriage of Engler, 503 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). The trial court had the parties before it and was able to observe their demeanor and was in a good position to evaluate them as custodians. Forest, 201 N.W.2d at 730. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision.
In reaching this conclusion, we do not intend to minimize Krista's past or future parenting role. Her commitment to the welfare of her children and her parental competence cannot be seriously questioned. Her continued commitment to parenting is essential to the children's immediate and long-term best interests. As a joint custodian, Krista enjoys considerable parental rights and duties. See Iowa Code section 598.41(5). We trust that any initial disappointment with our decision will not discourage her in the exercise of those rights or the discharge of parental duties.
We note that while Jeff had temporary physical care of the children, he enrolled Sydney in a preschool program that interfered with Krista's midweek visitation without discussing the choice with Krista. His rationale for the unilateral decision was that he would "rather have a smart child than a dumb child." We caution Jeff to avoid such unilateral decisions affecting Krista's access to the children and remind him of his obligation to honor Krista's role as joint legal custodian in making decisions affecting the children's best interests.