Upon the Petition of KURTIS E. GLENN , Petitioner - Appell ee , And Concerning LINDSAY J. REYNOLDS , Respondent - Appell ant .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-829 / 08-0060
Filed December 31, 2008
Upon the Petition of
KURTIS E. GLENN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
LINDSAY J. REYNOLDS,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Daniel P. Wilson,
Judge.
A mother appeals from a district court ruling placing physical care of her
minor child with the child’s father. AFFIRMED.
Steven E. Goodlow, Albia, for appellant.
Victoria R. Siegel, Ottumwa, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
Lindsay Reynolds appeals from a district court ruling placing physical care
of her minor child with the child’s father, Kurtis Glenn. We affirm the judgment of
the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Lindsay Reynolds and Kurtis Glenn are the parents of Kaitlynn, born in
November 2006.
The parties were never married.
Kurtis filed a petition in
February 2007 seeking joint legal custody and physical care of Kaitlynn.
The district court entered a temporary order in July 2007 placing Kaitlynn
in the parties’ joint legal custody and in Lindsay’s physical care.
Shortly
thereafter, the State filed a petition alleging Kaitlynn was a child in need of
assistance (CINA) due to Lindsay’s “history of psychiatric problems” and failure
to adequately supervise Kaitlynn. The petition asserted that Lindsay left Kaitlynn
alone in her apartment while she was engaged in a fight with another resident of
her apartment complex.
Lindsay was arrested and charged with disorderly
conduct as a result of that incident. An assessment investigating the incident
resulted in a founded child abuse report based in part on allegations that Lindsay
had left Kaitlynn alone on numerous other occasions.
Kaitlynn was adjudicated a CINA in September 2007.1 The juvenile court
found Lindsay “has a history of mental illness resulting in her inability to care for
her child.”
The court granted concurrent jurisdiction to the district court for
litigation of “issues relating to the custody and placement” of Kaitlynn. A trial on
1
We note that Lindsay filed a notice of appeal from this ruling on September 20, 2007.
3
Kurtis’s petition seeking joint legal custody and physical care of Kaitlynn was
subsequently held in October 2007.
At the time of the trial, Kurtis was twenty-four years old and employed fulltime at Pella Corporation where he works the night shift from 4:30 p.m. until 3:00
a.m. He is very close to his parents and lives near them in a two bedroom house
with a room for Kaitlynn. His mother is available and willing to care for Kaitlynn
while Kurtis works at night.
Lindsay was twenty-four years old at the time of the trial and employed
part-time as a waitress. She lives in an apartment, the exact address of which
she refused to reveal during the CINA proceedings in order to “avoid
harassment” from the police. She denied having any mental health issues at the
trial on Kurtis’s petition, stating she instead believes she is “under a lot of stress.”
She did admit, however, to being hospitalized “maybe twice for crying too much.
At a bad time in my life. Years ago.” Lindsay’s other daughter from a prior
relationship, MacKenzie,2 was placed in the guardianship of Lindsay’s mother in
prior CINA proceedings.
Kurtis and Lindsay began dating in October 2005. They resided with one
another from December 2005 until January 2006. Kurtis testified that he ended
his relationship with Lindsay because she was “very emotional and she had ups
and downs that were pretty erratic.
She was very needy in her showing of
getting attention and small things . . . set her off.” While she was pregnant with
Kaitlynn, a “hysterical” Lindsay called Kurtis and threatened to commit suicide.
2
Lindsay’s first child’s name is spelled as both “Makenzie” and “McKenzie” in the district
court record. However, it appears from Lindsay’s brief that the correct spelling is
“MacKenzie.” We will therefore use that spelling in our opinion.
4
Kurtis testified that after Kaitlynn was born, Lindsay called him on several
occasions because she was “upset” and “couldn’t handle things.” She reported
at one point that she was “so tired that she is unable to care for the child.” Kurtis
filed his petition seeking joint legal custody and physical care of Kaitlynn soon
after she was born.
Following the trial, the district court entered an order placing Kaitlynn in
the parties’ joint legal custody and in Kurtis’s physical care. Lindsay appeals,
claiming the court erred in placing Kaitlynn in Kurtis’s physical care.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review of the district court’s order regarding custody and visitation in
this equity matter is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Callender v. Skiles, 623
N.W.2d 852, 854 (Iowa 2001). Although not bound by the court’s fact findings,
we give them weight, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses.
Iowa R. App. 6.14(6)(g).
III. Discussion.
“When considering the issue of physical care, the child’s best interest is
the overriding consideration.” In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101
(Iowa 2007).
We are guided by the factors set forth in Iowa Code section
598.41(3) (2007) as well as those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223
N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). See Yarolem v. Ledford, 529 N.W.2d 297, 298
(Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (noting these criteria apply regardless of parents’ marital
status). Among the factors to be considered are whether each parent would be a
suitable custodian for the child, whether both parents have actively cared for the
5
child before and since the separation, the nature of each proposed environment,
and the effect on the child of continuing or disrupting an existing custodial status.
See Iowa Code § 598.41(3); Winter, 223 N.W.2d at 166-67.
The ultimate
objective is to place Kaitlynn in the environment most likely to bring her to healthy
physical, mental, and social maturity. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d
683, 695 (Iowa 2007). With these principles in mind, we find the district court
was correct in placing Kaitlynn’s physical care with Kurtis.
Lindsay argues the district court did not properly consider the evidence of
her role as the primary caretaker of Kaitlynn.
However, while “stability and
continuity of caregiving are important factors that must be considered in custody
and care decisions,” there may be circumstances such as those present in this
case that outweigh these factors. Id. at 696-97.
The evidence presented at the trial establishes that Kaitlynn has been
exposed to risk of serious injury on multiple occasions while she was in Lindsay’s
care. Lindsay left Kaitlynn alone and unsupervised “numerous times” while she
was an infant. One such occasion resulted in Lindsay’s arrest for disorderly
conduct after she provoked a physical altercation with another resident of her
apartment complex.
Lindsay also failed to keep doctors’ appointments for
Kaitlynn, who suffered from jaundice, after she was born.
She admitted to
difficulty in caring for Kaitlynn, informing a representative from the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS) that “it is hard for her to care for Kaitlynn
when she gets up in the morning, because she is so weak that she cannot lift her
6
arms.” Lindsay has contacted Kurtis on several occasions, sometimes in the
middle of the night, for his assistance in caring for Kaitlynn.
Lindsay’s unresolved mental health issues are also concerning. Although
she was participating in counseling at the time of the trial, she denied having any
mental health issues and minimized her past mental health hospitalizations,
testifying she was hospitalized “maybe twice for crying too much.” During the
juvenile court proceedings, Lindsay admitted to making “approximately twenty
reports . . . to the local police department in which the police determined that no
action was necessary.” She refused to reveal her address at a juvenile court
hearing because she thought the “assistant county attorney would tell the police
where [she] was living, and the police would be at [her] apartment all the time
harassing her.”
She also refused to inform Kurtis of her address and
occasionally denied him and his family contact with Kaitlynn. See In re Marriage
of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 399 (Iowa 1992) (stating the denial by one parent of the
child’s opportunity to have meaningful contact with the other parent is a
significant factor in determining a physical care arrangement); see also Iowa
Code § 598.41(1)(a).
The district court found Lindsay’s “mental health status, her volatility in
dealing with others, [and] her attention-seeking behavior” militates against
placing Kaitlynn in her physical care. The court further found that “Kurtis will
provide the more stable home and environment within which Kaitlynn will be
raised” as demonstrated by his “stability in his community, school, . . . church”
7
and job. Our de novo review of the record reveals no reason to disturb these
findings in light of the evidence highlighted above.
We reject Lindsay’s argument that the district court erred in separating
Kaitlynn from her half-sister, MacKenzie. Our supreme court has “expressed a
strong interest in keeping children of broken homes together.” In re Marriage of
Orte, 389 N.W.2d 373, 374 (Iowa 1986). However, MacKenzie is in the care and
guardianship of Lindsay’s mother and has not resided with Lindsay since before
Kaitlynn was born.
See Will, 489 N.W.2d at 398 (stating the separation of
siblings is generally opposed “because it deprives children of the benefit of
constant association with one another”).
Furthermore, the presumption that
siblings should not be separated is “not ironclad . . . and circumstances may
arise which demonstrate that separation may better promote the long-range
interests of children.” Id. We believe such circumstances exist in this case.
While we do not doubt that Lindsay sincerely loves Kaitlynn, we find
Kaitlynn’s best interests will be better served by placing her in Kurtis’s physical
care. She will be more likely to reach healthy physical, emotional, and social
maturity in his care given Lindsay’s unresolved mental health issues and
demonstrated difficulty in providing a safe and stable home for her.
judgment of the district court is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
The
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.
