Upon the Petition of ALLISON CROW, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning SYED TAUFEEK MIRAN SHAH, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-297 / 06-1999
Filed June 27, 2007
Upon the Petition of
ALLISON CROW,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
SYED TAUFEEK MIRAN SHAH,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Kellyann M.
Lekar, Judge.
Syed Taufeek Miran Shah appeals from the district court’s decision giving
Allison Crow physical care of their minor child. AFFIRMED.
Robert L. Day of Day & Hellmer, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Janice R. McCool of McCool Law Office, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Syed Taufeek Miran Shah appeals from the district court’s decision giving
Allison Crow physical care of their minor child. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings
Talan, born in October 2005, is the son of Syed Taufeek Miran Shah
(Taufeek) and Allison Crow.
Allison became pregnant with Taufeek’s child
towards the end of her senior year in high school. After they graduated from high
school in Winthrop, Allison and Taufeek moved to the Des Moines area. Once
Talan was born, Allison immediately moved back to Winthrop to live with her
family. This move was prompted by Taufeek’s allegedly callous attitude during
the birth and his mother’s statements and actions at the hospital. Allison also
feared that Taufeek’s family was going to take Talan through physical force or
legal action.
Ten days after Talan’s birth, Allison filed an application seeking sole
custody and child support, with supervised visitation for Taufeek. The couple
later reconciled, and Allison moved back to the Des Moines area to live with
Taufeek. At one point, the parties came close to signing a stipulated custodial
agreement whereby Allison would have physical care, both parties would share
joint legal custody, and Taufeek would have a “normal” visitation schedule.
However, the relationship quickly soured because Allison believed Taufeek was
only concerned with drinking, chasing women, and playing video games. Allison
also felt uncomfortable leaving Talan with Taufeek. On the one occasion she left
him alone with Talan, Taufeek feel asleep.
Winthrop to live with her parents.
Allison and Talan returned to
3
In April 2006 Taufeek filed an application for temporary visitation. The
court granted Taufeek supervised visitation.
The court also ordered that “all
medical providers are to provide [Taufeek] with copies of all medical records for
[Talan], if requested.” The order did not address whether Taufeek could attend
Talan’s medical appointments.
Friction developed when Taufeek began to take an interest in Talan’s
doctor’s appointments. Based on the court order and advice from her counsel,
Allison insisted Taufeek did not have a right to be at the medical appointments.
This ongoing argument caused Allison to postpone some appointments. The
court amended the existing order, and Taufeek was allowed to attend the
medical appointments. Nine months after the petition for sole custody was filed,
Taufeek amended his answer and requested physical care.
The case came to trial a month later in August 2006. At the time of trial,
Allison was nineteen years old, living with her parents in Winthrop, and studying
for a degree in culinary arts. Taufeek was also nineteen years old. He lived in
the Des Moines area with his sister and brother-in-law. He attended college and
worked at a part-time job.
At trial Taufeek admitted that he had consumed alcohol and used false
identification to enter drinking establishments.
He also admitted to doing so
while he was on informal probation for an earlier charge of indecent exposure.
Taufeek’s attorney confronted Allison with deposition testimony about her
view of Taufeek’s role in Talan’s life. Allison had indicated she did not want
Taufeek to have a relationship with Talan.
At trial, Allison recanted her
deposition testimony. She stated the deposition did not depict her true feelings.
4
Instead, her statements were merely a reflection of her anger towards Taufeek
as he rolled his eyes, repeatedly stood up and focused the video camera on her,
and then made “smirky faces” when she answered his attorney’s questions. At
trial she testified that her relationship with Taufeek had improved since the
deposition and they were able to communicate about Talan. She testified that
she wants Talan to know his father, his religion, and his background.
The district court entered its decision on November 7, 2006, giving both
parties joint legal custody. Allison was granted physical care, and Taufeek was
granted visitation rights. The court also ordered Taufeek to pay monthly child
support. Taufeek appeals, contending the trial court erred in awarding physical
care of Talan to Allison.
II. Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P.
6.4.
We give weight to the district court’s fact-findings, particularly when
considering the credibility of witnesses, but they do not bind us. Id. We use the
same legal analysis in determining custody of children born to unmarried parents
as that utilized if the children’s parents were married and divorced. Lambert v.
Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988). Neither parent bears a higher burden of
proving parental fitness under these circumstances. Id.
In assessing an issue of child custody, the controlling consideration is the
best interests of the child. Id. The court determines placement according to
which parent can minister more effectively to the child’s long range best interests.
In re Marriage of Barry, 588 N.W.2d 711, 712 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). The court’s
objective is to place the child in the environment most likely to bring them to a
5
healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. Id. Insofar as is reasonable and in
the best interests of the child, the court should make an award of custody that will
assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and
emotional contact with both parents and which will encourage the parents to
share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child.
See Iowa Code §
598.41(1) (Supp. 2005).
III. Merits
In its ruling, the district court placed particular emphasis on a familycentered psychological examination prepared for trial.
The psychologist
recommended primary placement with Allison, with ongoing and frequent
visitation for Taufeek.
The psychologist also stated that, “Given Mr. Shah’s
background history as well as his young age, it is strongly recommended that
extended family members be available to assist him in the care of his son during
these visitations.”
Even though Taufeek was only nineteen years old, the
psychologist also made a specific recommendation that he abstain from any
alcohol use during visitation. The psychologist recommended ongoing support
from Allison’s family members, but did not recommend that other family members
be present when she provided for Talan’s care or make any comment regarding
her alcohol usage.
The court concluded Allison was the parent most capable of meeting
Talan’s long term best interests and bringing him to successful maturity. In so
ruling, the court noted Allison had been Talan’s primary caretaker since birth and
that she had “consistently made personal, stability, housing, and school
decisions which show her clear devotion and intention to parent Talan.”
6
Taufeek’s primary argument on appeal is that the court erred in granting
Allison physical care because he claims she will not recognize and support his
role as a parent. Taufeek argues Allison’s deposition testimony reflects her true
attitude, while her testimony at trial was fabricated to appease the court. The
denial by one parent of a child’s opportunity to have meaningful contact with the
other parent is a significant factor in determining the custody or physical care
arrangement.
Barry, 588 N.W.2d at 713.
The district court specifically
addressed this issue in its decision. The court stated:
Allison’s deposition testimony, although concerning, shows most
vividly emotional frustration, immaturity, and a lack of
understanding of parental roles. However, although her behavior
has not always been particularly encouraging, Allison has complied
with the court orders and the court believes she is credible in her
statements that she will comply with future court orders.
After carefully reviewing the record, we find no reason to upset the
findings of the district court. Both parties’ words and actions exhibit a level of
immaturity indicative of their age. This immaturity is likely fueled by their parents’
animosity towards the relationship.
Allison’s deposition testimony was
concerning, but her testimony at trial and the psychologist’s report both indicate
she is supportive of having Taufeek involved in Talan’s life. We also note that
Allison has complied with all court orders regarding visitation, and we find no
reason to believe she would jeopardize her position as physical caretaker by
choosing to ignore the present ruling.
We also find no basis in Taufeek’s assertions that Allison provides Talan
with inadequate medical care. Talan’s doctor testified that Allison provides “very
7
good care” for Talan and describes her as a “caring mother who has been
attentive to her child.”
IV. Conclusion
We find it apparent that the district court carefully reviewed the evidence
before making its custody, physical care, and visitation determinations.
The
court concluded Allison was the parent best capable of meeting Talan’s long term
best interests and bringing him to a successful maturity. However, the court also
noted:
Allison will need to significantly increase her efforts to cooperate
with and support the relationship of Taufeek and Talan as this is a
significant issue of concern for this court. Allison should be aware
that so long as Taufeek lives within reasonable driving distance and
his family continues to reside in close proximity to Talan, Taufeek
and his family should be afforded substantial opportunity for
maximum continuing contact with Talan. Rather than resist the
involvement of Taufeek and his family, this court hopes that Allison
can learn to see Talan’s extended paternal family as a support for
Talan.
After considering all arguments raised on appeal, whether or not
specifically addressed in this opinion, we agree with the district court’s decision
and find Talan’s best interests are served by granting physical care to Allison.
However, we also reiterate that Allison and her extended family must significantly
increase their efforts to cooperate with Taufeek and to support his relationship
with Talan. Consistency in these areas is a requirement of this decision and not
simply a suggestion. We caution Allison that denial of Taufeek’s visitation or
obstruction of reasonable access to Talan would be viewed seriously in any
future action to modify the physical care provisions of this order.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
