ANDY QUANGVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. DANIELLE DAWN REID, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-750 / 08-2004
Filed October 21, 2009
ANDY QUANGVAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
DANIELLE DAWN REID,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Nancy S.
Tabor, Judge.
A father appeals from the district court order granting physical care of the
parties’ child to the mother. AFFIRMED.
Chad Thomas of Thomas Law Office, West Liberty, for appellant.
Caitlin Slessor of Nazette, Marner, Nathanson & Shea, L.L.P., Cedar
Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Andy Quangvan appeals the district court order awarding Danielle Reid
physical care of their son, Nathan.
Andy asserts that he should have been
granted physical care because he is better suited to provide for the long-term
best interests of Nathan. We affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Andy and Danielle are the parents of Nathan, born March 2006. At the
time of Nathan’s birth, Andy was twenty-one years old and Danielle was
seventeen years old.
During the pregnancy, Andy and Danielle decided to move into an
apartment together in Coralville. But, by October 2006, financial concerns forced
the couple to move in with Andy’s parents in Nichols, in Muscatine County. The
parties admitted that while they lived together they argued a lot. Danielle also
alleged there were occasions when Andy shoved her or slapped her, allegations
that were denied by Andy.
In addition, while the parties lived with Nathan’s
parents, tensions increased between Danielle and Andy’s mother because
Danielle felt she was very controlling with Nathan’s care and often overstepped
her boundaries.
In January 2007, a combination of the parties’ constant arguing and the
frustration with the living arrangements resulted in Danielle taking Nathan and
moving to Des Moines to live with Danielle’s father. For the next month, Nathan
spent weekdays with Danielle in Des Moines and weekends with Andy in Nichols.
By March 2007, Danielle was having difficulty caring for Nathan. At the
time, she was unemployed and struggling to find work because she was unable
3
to obtain daycare or transportation. Therefore, Danielle requested Andy’s help
by having Nathan live with him during the week and with Danielle on weekends.
This loose arrangement worked for the parties until November 2007, when
Danielle began working at a daycare center. At this time, Danielle wanted to
have Nathan during the week so she could enroll him at the daycare center at
which she was employed. By the end of 2007, the parties were alternating care
for Nathan on a weekly basis.
On January 23, 2008, Andy filed a petition for child custody and support.
On February 29, 2008, a temporary custody hearing was held, and it was
determined that the parties would continue to alternate weekly care while the
case was pending.
The custody case proceeded to trial on November 4, 2008. Both parties
testified to their abilities as parents, pointing to both their positive attributes while
raising concerns of the other.
At trial, Andy emphasized his stability.
He testified that he has been
employed as a PC technician at ACT, Inc. in Iowa City for the last two years and
he was in a stable living environment with his parents. Andy also stated that he
is taking classes online so he can increase his marketability to employers while
not detracting from his time with Nathan. Andy also acknowledged the help that
he has received from his family in raising Nathan, and stressed the importance of
keeping Nathan aware and exposed to his Thai heritage.
Andy expressed several concerns about Danielle’s instability. He pointed
out that since Danielle had moved to Des Moines, she worked for four different
employers and had lived in three different residences. He also emphasized the
4
fact that Danielle had recently been charged with operating while intoxicated1
and had only recently quit smoking.
Danielle acknowledged her employment history, but testified that her
decisions were made to improve her ability to provide for herself and Nathan
through better pay, benefits, and opportunities for advancement.
She also
testified that she is currently in a stable position working for Aerotek temp
agency. As of the time of trial, she had been working there over four months.
Danielle also stated that she has a stable living environment with her father and
that her family also helps in Nathan’s care. Danielle further stated that she had
quit smoking and drinking.
Danielle raised concerns about Andy. She asserted that Andy was not the
primary caregiver when they were together and often spent more time playing
computer games than focusing on their relationship.
She also asserted that
since moving in with his parents, Andy’s mother, not Andy, provided most of
Nathan’s daily care. As a result, Nathan began referring to Andy’s mother as
“momma.”
Andy and his mother acknowledged that this has occurred, but
dismissed it as Nathan simply struggling with saying his g’s. Danielle testified
that she supported Nathan’s exposure to his Thai heritage and tried to encourage
his development of the Thai language. However, she was concerned because
Nathan was babysat during the day by Andy’s grandmother who could only
speak Thai. This caused Nathan to be behind in his development of the English
1
Danielle had a .12 blood alcohol level. It was anticipated that she would receive a
deferred judgment for this offense, which did not occur while Nathan was in her care.
5
language.2 Danielle also complained that, despite her efforts, Andy refused to
communicate with her at transfers and did not keep her informed about Nathan’s
medical care.
The district court found that “both parents are extremely bonded to the
child, both parents have good qualities, and both parents are able to meet the
child’s physical and emotional needs.” Nonetheless, the district court determined
Danielle “would be in the best position to provide the future long-term care for
[Nathan]” and awarded her physical care.
Andy has appealed this
determination.3
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review child custody determinations de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
However, we recognize that the district court was able to listen to and observe
the parties and witnesses. In re Marriage of Zebecki, 389 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Iowa
1986). Consequently, we give weight to the factual findings of the district court,
especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by
them.
Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
Our principal consideration is the best
interests of the child. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa
2007).
III. Analysis
This is a case that has to be called a ball or a strike. The parents live
three hours apart, and only one of them can be granted physical care of Nathan.
2
This problem has subsequently been resolved, and Nathan is now conversant in both
Thai and English.
3
The district court also awarded joint legal custody and set visitation and child support.
Andy has not challenged these determinations on appeal.
6
Andy asserts that he should have been that person. In making a physical care
determination, the district court is guided by the factors enumerated in Iowa Code
section 598.41(3) (2007),4 as well as factors set forth in In re Marriage of Winter,
233 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). Id. The ultimate objective of a physical
care decision is to place the child in an environment most likely to bring him to
healthy physical, mental, and social maturity. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733
N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). As each family is unique, the decision is primarily
based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Id. at 696.
The record shows that Nathan is a healthy, bright, and well-adjusted child
and both parents love him and are strongly bonded to him. Also, the record
shows that both Andy and Danielle have positive and negative attributes as
parents. However, in weighing the factors on our de novo review, we agree with
the district court’s decision awarding Danielle physical care of Nathan.
Danielle is the parent who most “actively cared for [Nathan] before and
since the separation.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d). Andy’s own testimony at
trial established that while Nathan was in his care, Andy’s mother provided
Nathan with most of his care, including waking him up every morning and taking
him to Andy’s grandmother’s house, as well as picking him up every night and
feeding him before Andy would get home from work.
4
By contrast, Danielle
In a paternity/custody case such as this, if a judgment of paternity has been entered
and the mother has not been awarded sole custody, Iowa Code section 600B.40 grants
the district court authority to determine matters of custody and visitation as it would
under section 598.41. See Montgomery v. Wells, 708 N.W.2d 704, 707 (Iowa Ct. App.
2005). This includes the physical care determination. See Phillips v. Davis-Spurling,
541 N.W.2d 846, 847 (Iowa 1995).
7
provided for Nathan’s daily needs when he was with her. In addition, the district
court specifically found:
Based on Andy’s mannerisms of answering questions, his
demeanor in court, his looking down and putting his head down
when Danielle was testifying in court, the Court finds Danielle’s
testimony more credible, believes her testimony that Andy was
more interested in his computer programs than their relationship
[and] believes that she was primary caregiver while the parties
were together.
Although it is not binding upon us, we give weight to this credibility determination
because we were unable to observe or evaluate the demeanor of the parties.
See Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 101; In re Marriage of Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 681,
683 (Iowa 1999); In re Marriage of Roberts, 545 N.W.2d 340, 343 (Iowa Ct. App.
1996); In re Marriage of Engler, 503 N.W.2d 623, 625 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
In addition, there is a legitimate concern as to whether Andy can
communicate with Danielle regarding Nathan’s needs.
§ 598.41(3)(c).
See Iowa Code
On cross-examination, Andy admitted that he rarely talks to
Danielle at all. For example, it was undisputed that Andy never told Danielle of
Nathan’s two-year wellness examination.
Although Andy argues that Danielle lacks the stability to be granted
physical care of Nathan, the record shows Danielle is a suitable custodian for
Nathan. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a). Danielle now has stable employment, a
stable and wholesome living arrangement with her father, and support from
family members. Although there is concern about Danielle’s choices regarding
drinking and smoking, she took responsibility for her actions.
From our
independent review of the record, we agree that Danielle has overcome
8
considerable adversity, is gaining maturity, and is focused on the well being of
her son.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court’s
decision awarding Danielle physical care of Nathan. Therefore, we affirm.
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.
