LONNY JOE BRYANT, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. LINDA SUE WOODARD, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-063 / 08-1302
Filed April 22, 2009
LONNY JOE BRYANT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
LINDA SUE WOODARD,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Michael J. Moon,
Judge.
A father appeals a district court ruling granting physical care of his son to
the child’s mother, contending that joint physical care is warranted. AFFIRMED.
Brian Danielson, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Jennifer Donovan, Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Lonny Bryant appeals a ruling granting physical care of his son to the
child’s mother, Linda Woodard.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Bryant had a relationship with Linda Woodard that resulted in the birth of a
child in 1999. Bryant had no contact with the child for three years. At that point,
Woodard introduced their son to Bryant and later informed the child that Bryant
was his father. Bryant periodically visited his son over the next several months.
Eventually, the parents agreed that Woodard and the child would move in with
Bryant.
The parents lived together for approximately five years.
When their
relationship soured, Bryant petitioned for physical care of the child. Following
trial, the district court concluded that the child’s long-term best interests would be
served by having Woodard assume physical care of him, subject to Bryant’s
visitation rights. Bryant appealed.
II.
Analysis
Bryant argues that Woodard should not have been granted physical care
because her past performance in raising four children from another relationship
“paints a bleak picture of the quality of care [this child] probably will receive if he
is to remain in her care.” In his view, “the proof is in the pudding.”
As the district court pointed out, the record is replete with evidence of the
failings of Woodard’s other children and the moral weaknesses of both parents.
We have recognized that past performance may be an indicator of future
behavior. In re Marriage of Winnike, 497 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).
3
But we have also stated moral misconduct is of particular importance “only in
those cases where the misconduct occurred in the presence of the children.” In
re Marriage of Roberts, 545 N.W.2d 340, 343 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). On our
de novo review, we are not convinced the parents’ past parenting and lifestyle
choices directly affected the welfare of this child.
With respect to this child, the district court noted that, at trial, he got “[l]ost
in the shuffle.” Nonetheless, we believe the record is clear on several key points
affecting his best interests. See In re Marriage of Rodgers, 470 N.W.2d 43, 44
(Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (stating primary concern is child’s best interests). First, it is
clear that Woodard served as the boy’s primary caretaker throughout his young
life. See Roberts, 545 N.W.2d at 343 (stating we may consider which parent has
historically been the primary caregiver). Second, the child’s emotional bond with
his mother was stronger than with his father. See In re Marriage of Hansen, 733
N.W.2d 683, 700 (Iowa 2007). Indeed, Bryant conceded that Woodard was the
parent the child turned to when he was hurt or scared.
Finally, the limited
evidence pertaining to the child reveals that he was fairly well-adjusted. Although
he had some behavioral issues when he first started school, Bryant testified that
they dissipated with time. The child also had friends, was a good student, and
was involved with extracurricular activities. While there was some evidence that
Woodard was more permissive and less structured than Bryant, there was scant
evidence that the child was adversely affected.
Based on this record, we conclude the district court acted equitably in
granting Woodard physical care of the child.
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.
