Painter v. Bannister
258 Iowa 1390, 140 N.W.2d 152, 1966 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 732 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody dispute, the court's primary consideration is the best interest of the child, which may override the presumptive right of a natural parent to custody if returning the child to the parent is likely to have a seriously disrupting and disturbing effect on the child's development.
Facts:
- Mark Painter's mother, Jeanne Bannister, and father, Harold Painter, came from highly contrasting backgrounds; Jeanne from a conventional, middle-class Iowa family and Harold from a more unconventional, 'Bohemian' background.
- Mark's mother and younger sister were killed in an automobile accident on December 6, 1962.
- Following the accident and other unsatisfactory care arrangements, Harold Painter asked Mark's maternal grandparents, Dwight and Margaret Bannister, to care for Mark in July 1963.
- Mark, then five years old, was poorly adjusted when he arrived but made significant improvements emotionally and socially while living in the stable home of his grandparents in Iowa.
- Harold Painter remarried in November 1964 and subsequently sought to have Mark returned to his care.
- The Bannisters refused to return Mark, believing it was in his best interest to remain with them.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold Painter initiated a habeas corpus action in an Iowa trial court to regain custody of his son, Mark, from the maternal grandparents, Dwight and Margaret Bannister.
- The trial court awarded custody of Mark to the father, Harold Painter.
- The Bannisters, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa issued an order staying the execution of the trial court's judgment, which allowed Mark to remain in the custody of the Bannisters pending the outcome of the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the best interest of the child require awarding custody to his maternal grandparents over his natural father, even when the father is a fit parent, if the child has developed a stable and secure life with the grandparents after a period of instability?
Opinions:
Majority - Stuart, J.
Yes, the best interest of the child requires that custody remain with the maternal grandparents. While there is a presumption of parental preference, the primary consideration is the best interest of the child. The court found that the Bannister home provided Mark with a stable, dependable, and secure environment, which was critical for his development. In contrast, Mr. Painter's home was described as 'unstable, unconventional, arty, Bohemian and probably intellectually stimulating.' The court placed significant weight on the testimony of a child psychologist, Dr. Hawks, who warned that removing Mark from the home where he had established his grandfather as a 'father figure' would be detrimental to his well-being and have a 'seriously disrupting and disturbing effect.' The court concluded it could not 'gamble with this child's future' by removing him from the only stable atmosphere he had known and returning him to an 'uncertain future' with his natural father.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision illustrating the evolution of the 'best interest of the child' doctrine to sometimes supersede the 'parental rights' doctrine. It establishes that a court may deny custody to a fit biological parent in favor of a third party if there is strong evidence that the transfer would be detrimental to the child's psychological and emotional well-being. The court's willingness to make value judgments about contrasting lifestyles—favoring a conventional, stable environment over an unconventional, 'Bohemian' one—has been a subject of significant legal and social commentary. The decision underscores the importance of stability and the concept of the 'psychological parent' in custody determinations.
