IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1876
Filed November 9, 2016
UPON THE PETITION OF
MANUEL VILLALOBOS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
And Concerning
FATMATAH MANNEH,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L.
Stigler, Judge.
Manuel Villalobos appeals the district court order granting joint physical
care. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Paul W. Demro of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles & Demro,
P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
Manuel Villalobos and Fatmatah Manneh are the unmarried parents of a
child, born in 2014. Approximately six months after the child’s birth, Villalobos
petitioned for custody, visitation, and child support. The parents temporarily
stipulated to “shared physical placement of the child with each parent having
[her] for 7 days at a time . . . and alternating weeks thereafter.” The district court
approved the stipulation. Following trial, the court granted the parents joint
physical care, to be exercised as set forth in the stipulation. The court did not
mention who would receive the tax dependency exemption. Villalobos appealed.
Villalobos contends the district court should have granted him physical
care of the child instead of joint physical care. He cites his employment and
housing stability and contrasts his lifestyle to what he characterizes as Manneh’s
“instability.”
“[T]he joint physical care issue must be examined in each case on the
unique facts,” with consideration given to the statutory factors set forth in Iowa
Code section 598.41(3) (2015). See In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683,
695 (Iowa 2007). “The legal analysis employed in resolving a question
concerning the custody of a child born [to unmarried parents] is the same as that
which would . . . be[ ] utilized if the child’s parents had been married . . . .”
Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988).
Manneh was employed at the same facility that employed Villalobos.
Although she moved several times in the years preceding trial, she was living in a
five-bedroom, rented home at the time of trial. The home was spacious enough
to accommodate five of her eight children, including the child of this relationship.
3
A sixth adult child did not live in the home and the two remaining children lived
with their father.
In granting joint physical care, the district court emphasized the child’s
relationship with her siblings. We give weight to this finding, which is supported
by Manneh’s testimony that the siblings were close to the child and “love[d] her
with all their heart.”
Manneh raised the child on her own for the first several months of the
child’s life. When the child was two months old, Manneh granted Villalobos visits
in her home. As noted, the parents later stipulated to a joint physical care
arrangement. This arrangement lasted through the time of trial approximately
nine months later.
The temporary arrangement was not conflict-free. Shortly after the
stipulation was filed, Manneh changed her mind about the agreement, citing the
child’s young age. Villalobos applied to have Manneh held in contempt. The
district court granted the application and ordered the child placed with Villalobos
for thirty continuous days. Several months later, Villalobos filed a second
contempt application alleging Manneh again denied him contact with the child.
The parents resolved the application by agreeing to revert to the terms of the
temporary stipulation. The court held the application in abeyance but ordered the
parents to exchange the child at the police station.
Manneh’s refusal to follow the order approving the temporary stipulation
gave the district court pause and gives us pause. But, by the time of trial, she
agreed the child was not too young to spend time with her father and further
4
agreed she would abide by the district court’s final ruling. On our de novo review
of the record, we are persuaded joint physical care was appropriate.
The parents agree that, if the joint physical care arrangement is affirmed,
the income tax dependent exemption should be alternated between them.
Manneh recommends she take the exemption in odd years and Villalobos take
the exemption in even years. We approve this recommendation and modify the
order to incorporate this resolution. See Iowa Ct. R. 9.6(5) (“In cases of joint
(equally shared) or split physical care, the dependent exemption(s) for the mutual
child(ren) of the parties shall be assigned according to the order or decree
establishing the joint or split care arrangement.”).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.