Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-635 / 11-0027 Filed December 7, 2011

CHRISTOPHER A. LOW, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. LINDSEY S. BROOKING, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Bryan H. McKinley, Judge.

A father appeals from a district court order granting physical care of the parties' child to the mother. AFFIRMED.

Douglas A. Krull, Northwood, for appellant. William T. Morrison of Morrison Law Firm, Mason City, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Danilson, JJ.

2 VOGEL, P.J. Christopher Low appeals from a district court's ruling that placed physical care of the parties' son with the mother, Lindsey Brooking. Because we agree with the district court's ruling that placing physical care with Lindsey is in the best interests of the child, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Chris and Lindsey had a brief relationship in the summer of 2008. Lindsey learned she was pregnant in September 2008, and informed Chris of the pregnancy in October 2008. Z.B. was born in May 2009. A paternity test was completed, with the August 17, 2009 test results showing Chris was the father. A follow-up test conducted at Chris's request confirmed the initial results. This proceeding was first brought by Chris on October 23, 2009, to establish paternity, custody, and child support. The matter came on for hearing before the district court on September 15 and 16, 2010. On November 5, 2010, the district court issued its ruling, which granted the parties joint legal custody of Z.B., with physical care to Lindsey. Chris filed a motion to enlarge, taking issue with several points in the ruling. Lindsey resisted the motion and on December 6, 2010, the district court denied Chris's motion. Chris appeals. II. Standard of Review Our review of matters in equity is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; see also McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 736 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) ("We review child custody and support orders de novo."). "Although we decide the issues raised on appeal anew, we give weight to the [district] court's factual findings,

3 especially with respect to the credibility of the witnesses." In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Iowa 2003). III. Analysis In assessing the issue of physical care, the first and governing consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Walton, 577 N.W.2d 869, 871 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). The physical caretaker should be the parent who can most effectively administer to the long-term best interests of the child and place the child in an environment that will foster a healthy physical and emotional life. Id. Factors considered by the court in determining the best

interests of the child include the characteristics of the child, the needs of the child, the characteristics of each parent, the capacity and interest of each parent to provide for the child, the interpersonal relationship between the child and each parent, and the effect on the child of continuing or disrupting an existing custodial status. See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166

Download CHRISTOPHER A. LOW, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. LINDSEY S. BROOKING, Respondent-Ap

Iowa Law