## Facts

- Mark Wendell Painter’s mother and younger sister died in an automobile accident in December 1962.
- After other arrangements for Mark’s care proved unsatisfactory, Harold W. Painter (Mark’s father) asked Mark’s maternal grandparents, Dwight and Margaret Bannister, to take Mark.
- In July 1963, the Bannisters brought Mark to their farm home near Ames (Gilbert), Iowa, where he lived for about two years.
- The Bannisters provided a stable, respected community environment; the grandfather was active in local civic and church activities.
- Painter had an unconventional, itinerant background and lifestyle associated with a nontraditional “Bohemian” environment in California.
- Painter remarried in November 1964 and sought to resume custody; the Bannisters refused to release Mark, leading to a habeas corpus custody dispute.
- A child psychologist testified that Mark’s behavior and adjustment improved significantly while living with the Bannisters and that Mark had formed a strong attachment to them, viewing his grandfather as an authority and father figure.
- Additional expert testimony characterized the Bannister home as stable and dependable with strong educational prospects, and Painter’s prospective home as offering more freedom but less stability and practicality.

## Issues

1. Whether the child’s best interests can justify awarding custody to third-party grandparents over a fit natural parent.
2. How courts should weigh parental preference against evidence of stability, continuity, and psychological attachment in a third-party home.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s award of custody to Painter.
- The court awarded custody to the Bannisters, concluding Mark’s best interests were served by remaining with them.
- The court acknowledged Painter was not legally unfit but held that the child’s welfare warranted custody in the grandparents.
- The court gave substantial weight to expert testimony regarding Mark’s improved adjustment and the likely harm from disrupting established attachments and stability.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling custody standard is the child’s best interests; parental preference is not conclusive.
- A court may award custody to a nonparent without a finding of parental unfitness when the evidence shows the child’s welfare is better served in the nonparent’s care.
- Stability, continuity of care, and the child’s psychological attachment to the current caregivers may outweigh a fit parent’s claim, particularly after a sustained placement.
- Expert testimony on the child’s emotional needs and the effects of removal may be central to determining best interests.

## Conclusion

The court held that Mark’s welfare required custody to remain with his maternal grandparents because their home provided superior stability and continuity and because Mark had formed a significant, beneficial attachment there, overcoming the usual preference for custody with a fit natural parent.


Painter v. Bannister, 258 Iowa 1390, 140 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 1966)