Lambert v. Everist

Decision Date20 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-1854,86-1854
Citation418 N.W.2d 40
PartiesJames A. LAMBERT, Appellant, v. Sarah EVERIST, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Bradford Kollars, Sioux City, for appellant.

Leroy J. Sturgeon of Smith & Smith, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, SCHULTZ, LAVORATO and ANDREASEN, JJ.

McGIVERIN, Chief Justice.

This case comes before us on petitioner-father's application for further review of the court of appeals decision. Petitioner and respondent-mother are the unwed parents of a six year old minor child. Petitioner sought custody of the child under Iowa Code section 675.40 (1985) in the trial court and was awarded joint legal custody with the respondent. Primary physical care, however, was left with respondent and petitioner appeals the physical care award.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. We granted petitioner's application for further review and now vacate the court of appeals decision. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's ruling. Because we award physical care to petitioner, we also remand for the trial court to consider visitation with the child by respondent. In oral argument before us, petitioner stated he was not asking for child support from respondent at this time.

I. Factual background. Petitioner James Lambert and respondent Sarah Everist met in 1979 while both were working for a television station in Sioux City, Iowa. They became romantically involved and Sarah subsequently became pregnant. Choosing not to get married, the couple lived together in James' residence. Sarah quit her job at the television station shortly thereafter, and James supported the couple through the period of Sarah's pregnancy.

Indicative of the lifestyle differences between the couple, Sarah insisted, over James' objections, upon an in-home birth assisted by a midwife. James eventually honored Sarah's wishes and even helped with the in-home birth on April 6, 1981.

After their daughter, Laural, was born, the couple rented a small farmhouse outside the city. James continued to work while Sarah stayed at home to raise the child.

During the one and one-half years that the couple lived outside the city, Sarah's lifestyle and personal philosophies became increasingly unconventional. She frequently argued with James over his traditional dress and his conformity to the expectations of the nine-to-five work world.

Complicating matters, Sarah's primary adult companionship while James was working was a nearby couple whose lifestyle was considerably outside the mainstream. Among their many nontraditional practices, perhaps the most notable for their offensiveness to James, was their "open marriage" shared with another woman who lived in their home and their dogmatic belief in herbal recipes as preventative and curative medicine. As Sarah spent more and more time with this couple, particularly with the husband, James felt increasingly alienated. Eventually, growing differences over matters ranging from sexual mores to diet, coupled with the couple's inability to compromise, drove Sarah and James apart.

James paid the bills on the farm for the month and moved into Sioux City. Not long after, Sarah also moved back into the city. James helped with the move and began visiting Laural on a regular basis thereafter. By stipulation of the parties in a prior court action, James acknowledged paternity of Laural and began paying child support to Sarah. While Sarah allowed and even encouraged regular visitations by James with Laural, she insisted upon making all of the decisions affecting their daughter's upbringing. Between the time Sarah moved back into Sioux City and the commencement of this action by James for custody and physical care, Laural spent roughly half of her time with each parent.

Over the years between the couple's separation and this action, James became increasingly dissatisfied with the decisions Sarah was making on behalf of Laural. Sarah became an advocate of "natural" food and insisted that James follow the diet Sarah prescribed for Laural or lose the visitation rights he enjoyed. When Laural became sick, Sarah fashioned home remedies consisting of herbs, roots and vitamin supplements or took her to natural healers, treating conventional medicine as a last resort.

Although James seemed more concerned about his lack of input on the above-mentioned matters than about the actual choices Sarah made for their daughter, Sarah's choice to expose Laural to practices James considered improper for a young child disturbed him. On one occasion, James accompanied Sarah and Laural to a "Rainbow Gathering." James disliked the fact that Laural was exposed to illicit drug use and adult nudity at this quasi-communal gathering, and found the sanitation practices deplorable. When James complained to Sarah, she ignored his opinion, telling him she felt their daughter could benefit from attending such events.

James seriously opposed Sarah's decisions not to immunize Laural against various childhood diseases and to keep her out of traditional schooling.

Sarah believed that immunizations were not healthy for children, and despite frequent arguments with James, refused to allow him to get Laural immunized. Without telling Sarah, James had Laural immunized for measles. Sarah was furious when she later learned of it. Although Sarah subsequently allowed Laural to have an orally administered vaccination on one occasion, she continued to prohibit James from giving Laural any vaccinations by injection.

Sarah and James had several arguments over Laural's schooling. James recognized his daughter's embarrassment at not being in school, when other children her age attended school, and he felt a traditional school would be best for Laural's social and intellectual development. Sarah resisted enrolling Laural in a traditional school, hoping to find a home school with a more creative learning environment. Laural is now enrolled in kindergarten in a Sioux City parochial school because Sarah enrolled her during the trial.

Although the couple communicates well concerning Laural, they continue to disagree over her appropriate care. Sarah has developed a close relationship with members of a native American Indian community in Nebraska and frequently takes Laural along on her visits. Sarah continues to believe she should control all of the decisions affecting Laural. James on the other hand, while he sees Laural's exposure to other cultures and lifestyles as positive, wants her to be raised so that she is comfortable in the dominant cultural conventions of this society.

Citing Sarah's refusal to accommodate his input into the decisions affecting Laural's upbringing, James filed this custody action in equity pursuant to Iowa Code section 675.40. The trial court granted joint custody of Laural to both parents and placed physical care with Sarah. See Iowa Code § 598.1(4), (5). Upon James' appeal, we transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed.

Concluding that physical care should be given to James, we vacate the court of appeals decision, reverse in part the trial court's ruling and remand with directions.

II. Physical care of Laural. James brought this custody action pursuant to Iowa Code section 675.40 which states:

The mother of a child born out of wedlock whose paternity has not been acknowledged and who has not been adopted has sole custody of the child unless the court orders otherwise. If a judgment of paternity is entered, the father may petition for rights of visitation or custody in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
103 cases
  • In re the Marriage of Kaleena M. Steinke
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2011
    ...governing consideration of the courts is the best interests of the child[ren]." Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o); see also Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988). III. Discussion. On appeal, Kaleena contends the district court erred in finding D.J. to be the equitable father of K.S. A......
  • Montgomery v. Wells
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 2005
    ...parties are dissolving their marriage or are unwed." In re Purscell, 544 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa Ct.App.1995). See also Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988). We therefore hold that the district court does have authority under Iowa Code section 600B.40, as it does in section 598.4......
  • Stieneke v. Sargent
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 2016
    ...the attorney fee award. We affirm the judgment of the district court.Our review is de novo. See Iowa R. App P. 6.907 ; Lambert v.. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988). We review the entire record and decide anew the factual and legal issues presented. See In re Marriage of Williams, 589 ......
  • In re Fenn
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2014
    ...598.41 (2013). Iowa Code § 600B.40. Our analysis is the same whether the parents have been married, or remain unwed. Lambert v.. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988) ; Yarolem v. Ledford, 529 N.W.2d 297, 298 (Iowa Ct.App.1994). Our objective is to place the children in an environment like......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT