Jessica A. Bohannon v. Dayne Smolik

Citation: Not availableDocket: 16-0082

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; September 28, 2016; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dayne Smolik appeals a child custody decree from the Iowa District Court, which awarded physical care of the child to Jessica Bohannon and established a parenting schedule for Dayne. Dayne challenges the court’s decision to place the child in Jessica's care instead of ordering joint physical custody and seeks more parenting time. Both parents have requested appellate attorney fees. 

The background reveals that Dayne and Jessica had an on-and-off romantic relationship lasting approximately eleven years, during which they had one child. Jessica presented evidence of physical and emotional abuse by Dayne, including testimonies from witnesses and photographic evidence of property destruction, with instances of the child being present during abusive incidents. Dayne denies abuse but admits to mutual altercations and property damage. 

After separating, both parents attempted to establish a shared care arrangement informally, but Jessica claims she signed under duress from Dayne's harassment. A formal joint care agreement was never signed or filed. Concerns were raised by both parties regarding the individuals introduced to the child, impacting their respective views on custody. Jessica now lives with a new boyfriend and their child.

The trial took place over multiple days in late 2015, where Jessica sought physical care, while Dayne sought joint custody. The court granted joint legal custody but awarded Jessica physical care, creating a parenting schedule that allows Dayne increased time with the child as they age, alongside child and medical support obligations imposed on Dayne. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, proceeding with a de novo review while giving weight to the district court’s credibility determinations.

The court's refusal to grant joint physical care was primarily based on the best interests of the child, as mandated by Iowa law. According to Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a), a court may award joint physical care upon a parent's request but must provide specific findings if it denies such a request. This statute does not presume joint physical care is favorable; rather, it is an option contingent on the child’s best interests. Key considerations include the ability of the parents to effectively communicate and cooperate in daily child-rearing issues. 

Several factors are evaluated to determine the appropriate custodial arrangement, including continuity and stability, parental communication and mutual respect, conflict levels between parents, and agreement on daily matters. Not all factors are weighted equally; their importance varies based on the case's unique circumstances. Ultimately, the court seeks to determine which parent is better suited to raise the child, irrespective of gender, and emphasizes that custody decisions should not be influenced by parental behavior. 

In this case, Dayne argued for joint physical custody, citing a previously successful informal arrangement and their ability to put aside personal differences for their child's benefit. However, the district court concluded that joint physical custody was not in the child's best interests, noting the child's lack of thriving during the prior arrangement. The court's detailed findings indicated that none of the relevant factors supported joint physical care, highlighting a significant inability of the parents to co-parent effectively due to a history of discord and hostility, including instances of abuse by Dayne against Jessica.

Jessica is deemed better equipped than Dayne to meet their child's physical and emotional needs, despite some concerns about her current romantic partner. Evidence indicates that Jessica was the primary caretaker before their separation, consistently ensuring the child's daily needs were met. The court found a history of domestic abuse involving Dayne, which creates a rebuttable presumption against joint physical care, as it affects the ability of parents to respect each other and communicate effectively. Dayne's violent behavior, including property damage in the child’s presence, further supports the denial of his request for joint physical care.

The court acknowledges that while the existence of a six-month-old half-sibling in Jessica's household is a factor, the primary consideration remains the child's best interests. The determination aims to provide an environment conducive to the child’s physical, mental, and social well-being. Consequently, the district court’s decision to award physical care to Jessica is affirmed.

Regarding parenting time, Dayne argues that the schedule does not ensure substantial contact with the child, claiming it contradicts Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) concerning the best interests of the child. He requests to have three days of parenting time every other weekend and one overnight visit each week. The current decree allows him parenting time every other weekend from Friday after school until Sunday evening.

Dayne's parenting schedule includes weekly visitation every Wednesday evening from after school until 7:00 p.m. Starting the 2017-2018 school year, his parenting time expands to every other weekend from Thursday after school until Sunday at 5:00 p.m., and every other Thursday from after school until Friday morning. The court declines to modify this schedule further, affirming it as well-considered and appropriate for the child's developmental stages.

For the summers of 2016 and 2017, Dayne's parenting time is set for every other weekend from Friday at 3:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m., along with overnight visits every Wednesday. This schedule will evolve in 2018 to include every other Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to Monday at 10:00 p.m. The court finds no need to expand the summer schedule as it is already well-structured.

Dayne requests alternating Christmas holidays or equal splits, but the court notes the existing schedule already provides for alternating holidays, thus no modification is warranted. He also seeks clarification on communication with the child while in the other parent's care, but as he did not file a motion to address this issue, the court declines to consider it on appeal.

Both parties request appellate attorney fees, but the court determines that these fees are discretionary and, after evaluating the circumstances, decides not to award fees, placing the burden of costs on each party. The existing parenting schedule and decisions regarding attorney fees are affirmed.