Callender v. Skiles

• Decision Date: 21 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-0069.,00-0069.
• Citation: Callender v. Skiles, 623 N.W.2d 852 (Iowa 2001)
• Parties: Charles E. CALLENDER, Appellee, v. Rebecca D. SKILES, Appellant, Rick L. Skiles, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

623 N.W.2d 852

Charles E. CALLENDER, Appellee, v.Rebecca D. SKILES, Appellant,Rick L. Skiles, Respondent.

No. 00-0069.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 21, 2001.

R. Douglas Wells of Wells & Wells, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant.

M. Leanne Tyler of Tyler & Associates, P.C., Davenport, for appellee.

Jill A. Cirivello, Davenport, for minor child.

Considered en banc.

SNELL, Justice.

Rebecca D. Skiles, the mother of Samantha Skiles, appeals the amount of visitation of her daughter that was granted to the biological father.She argues the district court conducted an improper best interest of the child analysis.She also appeals the district court's order mandating when to tell the child of her true lineage.On appeal, we find that the amount of visitation was proper and supported by the child's best interest.However, we agree with the mother that the act of telling the child of her parentage should not have been ordered by the court.Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision as modified.

I.Factual Background and Procedure

This case involves the application of its predecessor decided by our court.Callender v. Skiles,591 N.W.2d 182(Iowa1999)(Callender I).In that case, we reversed and remanded the putative father's previously denied attempt to obtain standing to establish a relationship with his daughter.We sent the case back to the district court for a determination of whether overcoming paternity and granting visitation to the putative father was warranted.Id. at 192.The background described in Callender I necessary to this appeal is as follows.Charles Callender and Rebecca Skiles had an intimate relationship while Rebecca was separated from her husband, Rick Skiles.Rick and Rebecca reconciled, but not before Rebecca became pregnant with another man's child.Rick accepted the child as his own, and the couple and their other children now live together with baby Samantha as a family.Within six months of Samantha's birth, Charles sought to prove he was the biological father to obtain custody, visitation, and establish child support.The district court ordered that a blood test be performed, which established with a statistical certainty that Charles was Samantha's biological father.

Charles was then allowed minimal visitation with his daughter at a neutral site.Charles became unsatisfied with this arrangement and sought greater interaction, as well as the termination of Rick Skiles's parental rights to Samantha.Rick and Rebecca argued that Charles had no standing to challenge paternity, and the district court agreed the relevant statute did not provide Charles with the right to pursue this action.

Callender I addressed whether Charles had standing to challenge paternity.SeeIowa Code ch. 600B(1997).We found that this chapter foreclosed Charles from making a challenge because he was neither an "interested" person nor the "established father."However, this was not fatal because we held such an outcome violated Charles's right to due process.

We remanded the case to the district court to determine if paternity should be established in Charles and if a relationship between Charles and Samantha was warranted.Our court asked the district court to ensure that: (1) Charles had not waived his right to challenge paternity; (2) Paternity could be established in Charles; and (3) A relationship between Charles and Samantha was in her best interest.Our holding was sufficiently limited in Callender I to standing, but we directed the district court where it should look for guidance on remand.

We only hold our statute must provide a procedural mechanism for claims to bebrought.We leave the substantive claim of parenting for further determination under the similar standards governing the challenge of an established father, including the best interest of the child.

Callender I,591 N.W.2d at 192(referring to Iowa Code § 600B.41A(6)(a)(2)).

On remand, the district court terminated the parental rights of Rick.It established paternity of then four-year-old Samantha with Charles and determined a visitation schedule to begin immediately.Rebecca appeals.Specifically, she argues that the district court improperly considered factors outside the parameters of section 600B.41A.She asserts that Callender I does not authorize the use of Iowa Code section 598.41's presumption in tandem with the factors in section 600B.41A(6)(a)(2).Rick did not appeal the disestablishment of his paternal relationship with Samantha.

II.Scope and Standard of Review

Questions of paternity are reviewed on legal error.Id. at 184.As such, we are bound by only those factual findings made by the trial court based upon substantial evidence.Iowa R.App. P. 14(f)(1).However, where our review requires us to pass judgment on the reasonableness of the court's visitation and custody award, we utilize a de novo review.In re Marriage of Forbes,570 N.W.2d 757, 759(Iowa1997);Dye v. Geiger,554 N.W.2d 538, 539(Iowa1996)("Decisions ancillary to the question of paternity, such as support, are reviewed by this court de novo.").We need only give weight to the trial court's factual findings, but are not bound by them.SeeIowa R.App. P. 14(f)(7);In re Marriage of Weidner,338 N.W.2d 351, 356(Iowa1983).

Rebecca is appealing the amount of visitation directed and the order to tell Samantha of her true father following the court's disestablishment of paternity.Because we believe she is not challenging the disestablishment per se, but rather the ancillary decisions from that, we will employ a de novo review.

III.Issue on Appeal

The question here concerns the best interest of a child whose biological father is not the person she knows as her father.Specifically, because Charles is now the established father, what type of relationship between Charles and Samantha is in her best interest?Callender I directed the district court to consult the factors found in section 600B.41A(6)(a)(2) for a determination of what type of relationship is appropriate.The statutory factors include:

In determining the best interest of the child, the court shall consider all of the following:

(a) The age of the child.

(b) The length of time since the establishment of paternity.

(c) The previous relationship between the child and the established father, including but not limited to the duration and frequency of any time periods during which the child and established father resided in the same household or engaged in a parent-child relationship as defined in section 600A.2.

(d) The possibility that the child could benefit by establishing the child's actual paternity.

(e)Additional factors which the court determines are relevant to the individual situation.

Iowa Code § 600B.41A(6)(a)(2)(emphasis added).

This section does not purport to be exclusive in listing the factors in a best interest determination.The language of section 600B.41A(6)(a)(2)(e) authorizes the court to consider other relevant factors outside its language.As such, there is no standard test for what is in every child's best interest in every case.

A.The Best Interest Standard

Rebecca alleges that the district court impermissibly considered the presumption found in section 598.41.This presumption states:

The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents....

Id.§ 598.41(1)(a).Rebecca believes that section 598.41 should not be applied in the instant case because it is a provision utilized in normal custody disputes between two parents who are divorcing.This section places an emphasis on the tenet that a continuation of already established contact with both parents is likely to be in a child's best interest.

Here, we have a unique and complicated situation.Samantha knows Rick as her father and has an established relationship with him in his home.Charles, the biological father, has not had visitation with Samantha since she was two and one-half years old, and now has only just begun to visit Samantha after establishing his paternity.Under these facts, Rebecca maintains that section 598.41's preference for maximum contact is an inappropriate factor to determine what amount of visitation is appropriate.

On this matter, the court stated:

The Court's initial impression was to treat the amount of visitation like a "typical" dissolution—alternate weekends, alternate major holidays, Father's Day, alternate the child's birthday, and extended summer visitation.But the Court also needs to consider, among other things, the other three children and what effect and disruption Samantha's visitation schedule will have on them and on her relationship with them.Because of these factors, the Court finds that it would not be appropriate to grant the same visitation that is typically granted in a dissolution.

In reading the court's opinion as a whole, we do not find that the presumption noted in section 598.41 was applied.When it is in the best interest of the child to do so, the court may consider maximum contact with both parents.In deciding visitation rights using a best interest of the child analysis under section 600B.41A(6)(a)(2), it is not improper for a court to consider other established principles of visitation.Some have been codified in section 598.41, others have been delineated in our prior cases.

B.The Best Interest of Samantha

Rather than follow a more usual blueprint for visitation, the court imposed a somewhat lesser schedule.The visitation schedule is as follows:

1.For the first three months Charles was allowed the first and third Saturday of each month from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

2.Thereafter, Charles was allowed the first and third weekends of each month from 10:00 a.m. Saturday to 5:00 p.m. Sunday.

3.Charles was...