Chad Alan Trullinger v. Carrie Lynn Lindman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-0306
Filed January 10, 2024
CHAD ALAN TRULLINGER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
CARRIE LYNN LINDMAN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Brad McCall, Judge.
The father appeals a custody decree placing physical care with the child’s
mother. AFFIRMED.
Robert L. Stuyvesant of Stuyvesant, Strong, Krapfl and Carda, PLLC,
Carlisle, for appellant.
Carrie Lynn Lindman, Carroll, self-represented appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2
BULLER, Judge.
Chad Trullinger appeals from a custody decree placing physical care of his
child with the mother, Carrie Lindman. We affirm the physical-care ruling, finding
the child’s wishes, Lindman’s support of the child’s relationship with Trullinger, and
a preference for stability and consistency with a primary caregiver support the
district court’s decree.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Trullinger and Lindman had a child together in 2012. But Trullinger was
absent from the child’s life until 2021. During testimony at two different hearings,
Trullinger offered little explanation for why he did not develop a relationship with
the child during the first ten years of the child’s life.
Trullinger is a veteran and served nearly twenty years in the United States
Army. As of the custody trial, he worked as a regional manager for auto parts
shops in central Iowa. And he was between $25,000 and $30,000 in arrears on
child support, which he maintained was due to lapses in employment.
Trullinger’s criminal history includes decades-old convictions for burglary in
the second degree, an indictable sex offense (the record is inconsistent on the
specific charge), and operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Due
to the sex offense, Trullinger was placed on the sex-offender registry in the early
aughts; he indicated at trial that he was still listed on the registry but believed he
should not be. He completed a sex offender treatment program shortly after
conviction, and he described the facts of that offense as relating to a “one-night
stand type deal” with an older woman when he was twenty-one. He also reported
3
more recent convictions for failing to update his address, presumably as required
by the sex-offender registry, on at least two occasions.
Meanwhile, Lindman worked as a clerk and postmaster for the postal
service, picking up shifts as a certified nursing assistant on weekends when she
wasn’t caring for her child. She described her twenty-year drug-abuse history as
an “off and on” problem with smoking methamphetamine. And she reported
stopping and starting drug use a number of times around when her children were
born. She stopped using when pregnant with the child but started smoking
methamphetamine again when the child at issue was approximately six years old,
when her paramour brought drugs into the home. At trial, she testified that she
had not used since July 2021. Lindman did not have a significant criminal history
but was cited by a regulatory agency for not timely reporting abuse at a nursing
facility where she worked.
The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) became
involved with Lindman and the child in 2020 following reports of marijuana use in
the home. At trial, Lindman denied that report and explained she had not used
marijuana since she was a teenager because she does not “like” the drug. In
February 2021, facing eviction after a job opportunity did not pan out, Lindman
dropped off her two oldest children and the child at issue in this appeal at her ex-
husband’s home. After this, Lindman started smoking methamphetamine
frequently: “When I didn't have my kids, it was an everyday thing.” Despite having
confirmed paternity in 2013, Trullinger met the child for the first time in April 2021.
Because both parties were self-represented for some or all the proceedings
below, the exact timeline leading up to trial was not clearly developed. The record
4
establishes that, because of founded HHS reports, the child was placed in
Trullinger’s care in October 2021, and the child remained with him until the January
2023 trial. During this fifteen-month period, Trullinger was the primary caregiver
and Lindman had supervised and then unsupervised visitation.
More recent investigations, for which some reports were entered into
evidence, did not find continued drug use by Lindman. A March 2022 investigation
prompted by Lindman’s ex-husband was closed as not confirmed following
Lindman’s negative sweat patch test. HHS was concerned that Lindman may have
delayed testing to avoid a positive test but could not prove this. HHS investigated
Lindman again in October and November at Trullinger’s urging. Lindman took hair
and urine drug tests, which were negative, and the report was closed as not
confirmed. All of Lindman’s drug-tests since December 2021 have been negative.
She completed outpatient drug treatment in February 2022 and attended weekly
therapy.
At trial, Trullinger explained he was requesting physical care because he
thought he could “provide [the child] a better life without the risk” of drugs posed
by Lindman. He said he was concerned Lindman would start using drugs again
based on her history of “constant relapses.” Trullinger did not believe shared
physical care was feasible because Lindman lived approximately two-and-a-half
hours away. And he described his relationship with Lindman as “just kind of blah.”
He asserted he was not trying to keep the child from Lindman but also admitted he
denied Lindman access to the child’s school and daycare even after Lindman
demonstrated a significant period of sobriety. In Trullinger’s words: “I don’t trust
her one bit.”
5
Lindman testified she was requesting physical care because she had raised
the child for the majority of his life and she believed the child wanted to live with
her. Lindman explained that she knew she had “done wrong” and was “trying to
make amends and change [her] life” so that she could take care of her children.
She said she supported future visitation between the child and Trullinger but could
not explain why she had never supported visitation or contacted Trullinger during
the rest of the child’s life. She also explained that the child had friends in the school
system where she lived and the child had spent most of his life.
The child’s guardian ad litem offered the child’s view at the hearing, which
we reproduce here because of the weight it was afforded by the district court:
[T]he child would like to return to his mother’s care. I can say that
the child just feels closest to his mother with whom he’s resided the
majority of his life. It’s not a situation where he does not like his
father and wants to get away from his father. He would like to return
to living with his two older sisters [at the mother’s home] if at all
possible. But even if that doesn’t happen, he would like to return to
living with his mother.
He is only ten. His full understanding of drug addiction, it’s
not as strong as our understanding would be, but, nevertheless,
explaining why he was placed where he was, he still would like to
return to his mother’s care.
The district court ruled from the bench on the questions pertinent to this
appeal. The court first found shared physical care unworkable due to the
geographic distance between the parties. The court noted Lindman’s “extensive
extended and significant problem with the use of methamphetamine” and the
court’s concern that addiction impacted her ability to care for the child in the past
and could do so in the future in the event of relapse. Despite this, the court credited
Lindman for raising a “kind and happy and caring and polite and well-behaved”
child. The court found the child’s best interests—including Lindman’s support of
6
Trullinger’s relationship with the child and the child’s wishes—favored placing
physical care with Lindman. And the court imposed a drug-testing obligation for
Lindman in the event Trullinger raised reasonable concerns about her drug use.
Trullinger appeals, challenging only the physical-care determination.
Lindman, who represented herself through the proceedings, did not file an
appellee’s brief.
II. Standard of Review
“Our review of matters involving child custody and child support is de novo.”
Thorpe v. Hostetler, 949 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). “[W]e examine the
entire record and decide anew the issues properly presented.” In re Marriage of
Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 2005). “While we are not bound by the
fact-findings of the district court, we give them weight, especially as to credibility
determinations.” Thorpe, 949 N.W.2d at 5.
III. Discussion
Trullinger casts the physical-care inquiry as a binary choice that centers on
his opportunity to parent: “Is it in the child’s best interest to return the child to
[Lindman]’s custody or was it in [Lindman]’s best interest to have a second
chance?” And he urges that the district court decided the case based on Lindman’s
best interests, rather than the child’s.
“The objective of a physical care determination is to place the children in
the environment most likely to bring them to health, both physically and mentally,
and to social maturity.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695
(Iowa 2007). Although this action is governed by Iowa Code chapter 600B (2021),
we look to section 598.41 for guidance. See Iowa Code § 600B.40(1) (providing
7
“section 598.41 shall apply” to chapter 600B proceedings). In section 598.41, the
General Assembly set forth a series of nonexclusive factors to guide our
consideration of child custody. Our case law sets forth similar additional factors.
See In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). While we
afford some weight to the parent who historically acted as the primary caregiver,
this factor is not dispositive. See Flick v. Stoneburner, No. 15-1930, 2016
WL 2743449, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016) (collecting cases). Our overriding
consideration “is the best interests of the child.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o).
Neither parent has a spotless record. Lindman’s drug-abuse history is
deeply concerning, as is Trullinger’s criminal history and his status as a sex
offender. Both seem to be capable parents when at their best, but Lindman was
undoubtedly a poor caregiver while in the throes of addiction, and Trullinger’s
absence from nearly all the child’s life cannot be overlooked. Both have also done
well by the child despite the other parent’s failures—Trullinger stepped up as
primary caregiver when Lindman relapsed into methamphetamine addiction, and
Lindman was a caring parent during the many years Trullinger was absent.
For the district court, the scales were tipped in favor of placement with
Lindman by the child’s wishes, Lindman’s (admittedly newfound) support of the
child’s relationship with Trullinger, and the benefits of stability in the child’s home
life and schooling based on the years Lindman served as the only caregiver.
Recognizing there was no easy choice in this case, we see no fault in the district
court’s analysis. The factors considered are proper and favor placement with
Lindman, even if barely so. And we recognize concern over Lindman’s future drug
use should be tempered in small part by the post-decree drug-testing procedure
8
developed by the district court, which is similar to a procedure we have ordered.
See In re Marriage of Dudney, No. 22-0182, 2023 WL 1812818, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct.
App. Feb. 8, 2023). After deferring to the district court’s observations of the
evidence and its credibility findings concerning the mother’s sobriety, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.