MARIA BENITES DE LA LUZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICHARD RENDON, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-496 / 08-1892
Filed August 19, 2009
MARIA BENITES DE LA LUZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RICHARD RENDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary E. Wenell,
Judge.
A father appeals a district court order granting physical care of his
daughter to the child’s mother. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Zupp of Norelius & Nelson, P.C., Denison, for appellant.
Teresa O’Brien, Sioux City, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
Richard Rendon appeals a district court order granting physical care of his
daughter to her mother, Maria Benites de la Luz.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Richard and Maria had a child when Maria was seventeen years old and
Richard was nineteen. The parents had an on-again-off-again relationship for
several years. At the time of trial, they were no longer together; Richard was
married with two children from that marriage and Maria was also married.
When the child was seven years old, Maria filed a “Petition for
Determination of Permanent Care, Custody, Control, Child Support, and
Visitation.” The district court temporarily granted the parents joint physical care
of the child. Following trial, the district court granted Maria physical care.
Richard takes issue with this aspect of the court’s ruling.
II.
Analysis
In cases involving the determination of physical care of a child, the primary
concern is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Rodgers, 470 N.W.2d
43, 44 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
The record is replete with attacks and counterattacks on each parent’s
character, but, after sifting through the chaff, it is clear that both parents were
loving and appropriate caregivers.1 It is also clear that each parent viewed the
other as important in the child’s life.
See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (2007).
Maria testified that the child needed to have a relationship with her father.
1
The child was also under the watchful eye of two doting grandmothers.
3
Richard, in turn, stated that he “would never” tell his child that her mother was
“bad or anything” and he would “encourage her to call her mom.”
The problems were not in the parents’ relationships with the child but in
their relationship with each other. Specifically, their animosity and distrust of
each other resulted in poor communication on certain key issues affecting the
child. For example, Maria enrolled the child in a new school, apparently without
Richard’s knowledge or consent, did not tell him where the child was enrolled,
and failed to list Richard as the father on the new school records.
Richard
similarly picked the child up from her old school or had his mother do so without
informing Maria.
This lack of communication is relevant to a custody determination. See id.
§ 598.41(3)(c). Both parents certified to the court that they completed a childrenin-the-middle course, but the record reflects that neither took the instruction to
heart. Because both parents can be faulted for letting their feelings toward each
other interfere with effective communication about the child, we conclude this
factor does not favor either of them.
Two other factors, however, support the district court’s decision to grant
Maria physical care of the child. First, Maria was the primary caretaker until the
district court filed the temporary custody order. See id. § 598.41(3)(d). She took
on most of the child care duties for most of the child’s seven years and by all
accounts, raised a happy and well-adjusted child. Related to that factor, Maria’s
employment hours afforded her more time with the child than did Richard’s
hours. She went to work at 5:45 a.m. and returned at 2:10 p.m., allowing her to
4
spend the entire afternoon and evening with the child.
Richard, in contrast
worked from 7:00 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. on weekdays.
Second, the district court unequivocally gave more credence to Maria’s
testimony than to Richard’s testimony, a factor we give weight to because we are
unable to assess the demeanor of the parties. See In re Marriage of Roberts,
545 N.W.2d 340, 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“However, in the end we determine
this to be a close case, for both parents love their children very much and each is
capable of providing for their long-range best interests. In situations such as this,
we note the district court had the parties before it and was able to observe and
evaluate the parties as custodians.”).
For these reasons, we conclude the district court acted equitably in
granting Maria 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.
