Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?

Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?
May 20, 2004



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
By Thomas Simon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Most Americans think of cornfields and stable families when they think of
Iowa. But like other states, divorce laws in Iowa currently encourage and
reward family breakdown by favoring custodial parents, usually mothers, and
special interest groups who desire or profit from removing fathers from the
lives of their children.

But that may be starting to change. Despite intense lobbying efforts against
it by the Iowa Bar Association and the "domestic abuse" industry, Iowa
Governor Tom Vilsack (D), a contender as running mate for John Kerry, signed
into law "An Act Relating To The Awarding of Joint Physical Care of a
Child".

In a press conference today, Vilsack called it the most important bill he
has signed this year, emphasizing the importance of children having two
parents following divorce.

Introduced by the Human Resource Committee Chair, Representative Dan
Boddicker (R), as House File 22, the bill passed the Iowa House by a 59-37
margin on March 17, and passed the Iowa Senate unanimously (49-0, one
absent) on April 5, 2004.

The previously existing 2003 Iowa Code, Custody of Children, Section 598.41,
subsection 5, reads:

Joint physical care may be in the best interest of the child, but joint
legal custody does not require joint physical care. When the court
determines such action would be in the best interest of the child and would
preserve the relationship between each parent and the child, joint physical
care may be awarded to both joint custodial parents or physical care may be
awarded to one joint custodial parent.

That subsection is replaced as follows:

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either
parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the
best interests of the child.

The bill was initially worded as "shall award joint physical care", but was
changed to "may award joint physical care", making the presumptiveness of
equal custody less apparent. Also, shared custody remains subject to the
vagaries of a judge's interpretation of "the best interests of the
children", which in practice is often translated to mean "whatever the
mother wants".

The new law is an attempt to force judges to adhere to the laws they were
sworn to uphold by forcing them to explain why they are destroying a
relationship between a child and his parent, usually the father. That
destruction is typically disguised as an "award" of custody to one parent,
something both parents previously had prior to the actions of the state.

Controls sought to limit the acceptable reasons for destroying that
relationship by non-custodial parents are not included in the change to Iowa
custody law. Popular examples of such reasons include the custodial parents'
moving children far away, not cooperating, or making false allegations of
"abuse". Neither does the change help the thousands of Iowa fathers
currently deprived of access to their children.

Nevertheless, this change represents a shift in the focus towards divorced
fathers, following decades of increasingly harsh, draconian, and
unconstitutional laws treating them as bottomless wallets and de facto
criminals unworthy of basic human rights. Many fathers are routinely shocked
to discover how little concern for their relationship with their children is
shown by the courts, even when the father does not want the divorce, and
even when he has been found guilty of nothing other than "no fault".

Most significantly, this change may mean the tide is beginning to turn away
from divorce as a windfall for custodial parents and a boon for special
interests, towards minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children.
Countless studies have shown the importance of both parents, not only for
children, but for society as a whole.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Simon is a divorced father who has learned first hand how little
regard Iowa courts currently have for the best interests of children

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).

It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?
May 20, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
By Thomas Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

Most Americans think of cornfields and stable families when they think of
Iowa. But like other states, divorce laws in Iowa currently encourage and
reward family breakdown by favoring custodial parents, usually mothers,
and
special interest groups who desire or profit from removing fathers from
the
lives of their children.

But that may be starting to change. Despite intense lobbying efforts
against
it by the Iowa Bar Association and the "domestic abuse" industry, Iowa
Governor Tom Vilsack (D), a contender as running mate for John Kerry,
signed
into law "An Act Relating To The Awarding of Joint Physical Care of a
Child".

In a press conference today, Vilsack called it the most important bill he
has signed this year, emphasizing the importance of children having two
parents following divorce.

Introduced by the Human Resource Committee Chair, Representative Dan
Boddicker (R), as House File 22, the bill passed the Iowa House by a 59-37
margin on March 17, and passed the Iowa Senate unanimously (49-0, one
absent) on April 5, 2004.

The previously existing 2003 Iowa Code, Custody of Children, Section
598.41,
subsection 5, reads:

Joint physical care may be in the best interest of the child, but joint
legal custody does not require joint physical care. When the court
determines such action would be in the best interest of the child and
would
preserve the relationship between each parent and the child, joint
physical
care may be awarded to both joint custodial parents or physical care may
be
awarded to one joint custodial parent.

That subsection is replaced as follows:

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award
joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either
parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the
best interests of the child.

The bill was initially worded as "shall award joint physical care", but
was
changed to "may award joint physical care", making the presumptiveness of
equal custody less apparent. Also, shared custody remains subject to the
vagaries of a judge's interpretation of "the best interests of the
children", which in practice is often translated to mean "whatever the
mother wants".

The new law is an attempt to force judges to adhere to the laws they were
sworn to uphold by forcing them to explain why they are destroying a
relationship between a child and his parent, usually the father. That
destruction is typically disguised as an "award" of custody to one parent,
something both parents previously had prior to the actions of the state.

Controls sought to limit the acceptable reasons for destroying that
relationship by non-custodial parents are not included in the change to
Iowa
custody law. Popular examples of such reasons include the custodial
parents'
moving children far away, not cooperating, or making false allegations of
"abuse". Neither does the change help the thousands of Iowa fathers
currently deprived of access to their children.

Nevertheless, this change represents a shift in the focus towards divorced
fathers, following decades of increasingly harsh, draconian, and
unconstitutional laws treating them as bottomless wallets and de facto
criminals unworthy of basic human rights. Many fathers are routinely
shocked
to discover how little concern for their relationship with their children
is
shown by the courts, even when the father does not want the divorce, and
even when he has been found guilty of nothing other than "no fault".

Most significantly, this change may mean the tide is beginning to turn
away
from divorce as a windfall for custodial parents and a boon for special
interests, towards minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children.
Countless studies have shown the importance of both parents, not only for
children, but for society as a whole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Thomas Simon is a divorced father who has learned first hand how little
regard Iowa courts currently have for the best interests of children

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).

It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?
May 20, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
By Thomas Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

Most Americans think of cornfields and stable families when they think of
Iowa. But like other states, divorce laws in Iowa currently encourage and
reward family breakdown by favoring custodial parents, usually mothers,
and
special interest groups who desire or profit from removing fathers from
the
lives of their children.

But that may be starting to change. Despite intense lobbying efforts
against
it by the Iowa Bar Association and the "domestic abuse" industry, Iowa
Governor Tom Vilsack (D), a contender as running mate for John Kerry,
signed
into law "An Act Relating To The Awarding of Joint Physical Care of a
Child".

In a press conference today, Vilsack called it the most important bill he
has signed this year, emphasizing the importance of children having two
parents following divorce.

Introduced by the Human Resource Committee Chair, Representative Dan
Boddicker (R), as House File 22, the bill passed the Iowa House by a 59-37
margin on March 17, and passed the Iowa Senate unanimously (49-0, one
absent) on April 5, 2004.

The previously existing 2003 Iowa Code, Custody of Children, Section
598.41,
subsection 5, reads:

Joint physical care may be in the best interest of the child, but joint
legal custody does not require joint physical care. When the court
determines such action would be in the best interest of the child and
would
preserve the relationship between each parent and the child, joint
physical
care may be awarded to both joint custodial parents or physical care may
be
awarded to one joint custodial parent.

That subsection is replaced as follows:

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award
joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either
parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the
best interests of the child.

The bill was initially worded as "shall award joint physical care", but
was
changed to "may award joint physical care", making the presumptiveness of
equal custody less apparent. Also, shared custody remains subject to the
vagaries of a judge's interpretation of "the best interests of the
children", which in practice is often translated to mean "whatever the
mother wants".

The new law is an attempt to force judges to adhere to the laws they were
sworn to uphold by forcing them to explain why they are destroying a
relationship between a child and his parent, usually the father. That
destruction is typically disguised as an "award" of custody to one parent,
something both parents previously had prior to the actions of the state.

Controls sought to limit the acceptable reasons for destroying that
relationship by non-custodial parents are not included in the change to
Iowa
custody law. Popular examples of such reasons include the custodial
parents'
moving children far away, not cooperating, or making false allegations of
"abuse". Neither does the change help the thousands of Iowa fathers
currently deprived of access to their children.

Nevertheless, this change represents a shift in the focus towards divorced
fathers, following decades of increasingly harsh, draconian, and
unconstitutional laws treating them as bottomless wallets and de facto
criminals unworthy of basic human rights. Many fathers are routinely
shocked
to discover how little concern for their relationship with their children
is
shown by the courts, even when the father does not want the divorce, and
even when he has been found guilty of nothing other than "no fault".

Most significantly, this change may mean the tide is beginning to turn
away
from divorce as a windfall for custodial parents and a boon for special
interests, towards minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children.
Countless studies have shown the importance of both parents, not only for
children, but for society as a whole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Thomas Simon is a divorced father who has learned first hand how little
regard Iowa courts currently have for the best interests of children

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).

It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?
May 20, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
By Thomas Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

Most Americans think of cornfields and stable families when they think of
Iowa. But like other states, divorce laws in Iowa currently encourage and
reward family breakdown by favoring custodial parents, usually mothers,
and
special interest groups who desire or profit from removing fathers from
the
lives of their children.

But that may be starting to change. Despite intense lobbying efforts
against
it by the Iowa Bar Association and the "domestic abuse" industry, Iowa
Governor Tom Vilsack (D), a contender as running mate for John Kerry,
signed
into law "An Act Relating To The Awarding of Joint Physical Care of a
Child".

In a press conference today, Vilsack called it the most important bill he
has signed this year, emphasizing the importance of children having two
parents following divorce.

Introduced by the Human Resource Committee Chair, Representative Dan
Boddicker (R), as House File 22, the bill passed the Iowa House by a 59-37
margin on March 17, and passed the Iowa Senate unanimously (49-0, one
absent) on April 5, 2004.

The previously existing 2003 Iowa Code, Custody of Children, Section
598.41,
subsection 5, reads:

Joint physical care may be in the best interest of the child, but joint
legal custody does not require joint physical care. When the court
determines such action would be in the best interest of the child and
would
preserve the relationship between each parent and the child, joint
physical
care may be awarded to both joint custodial parents or physical care may
be
awarded to one joint custodial parent.

That subsection is replaced as follows:

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award
joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either
parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the
best interests of the child.

The bill was initially worded as "shall award joint physical care", but
was
changed to "may award joint physical care", making the presumptiveness of
equal custody less apparent. Also, shared custody remains subject to the
vagaries of a judge's interpretation of "the best interests of the
children", which in practice is often translated to mean "whatever the
mother wants".

The new law is an attempt to force judges to adhere to the laws they were
sworn to uphold by forcing them to explain why they are destroying a
relationship between a child and his parent, usually the father. That
destruction is typically disguised as an "award" of custody to one parent,
something both parents previously had prior to the actions of the state.

Controls sought to limit the acceptable reasons for destroying that
relationship by non-custodial parents are not included in the change to
Iowa
custody law. Popular examples of such reasons include the custodial
parents'
moving children far away, not cooperating, or making false allegations of
"abuse". Neither does the change help the thousands of Iowa fathers
currently deprived of access to their children.

Nevertheless, this change represents a shift in the focus towards divorced
fathers, following decades of increasingly harsh, draconian, and
unconstitutional laws treating them as bottomless wallets and de facto
criminals unworthy of basic human rights. Many fathers are routinely
shocked
to discover how little concern for their relationship with their children
is
shown by the courts, even when the father does not want the divorce, and
even when he has been found guilty of nothing other than "no fault".

Most significantly, this change may mean the tide is beginning to turn
away
from divorce as a windfall for custodial parents and a boon for special
interests, towards minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children.
Countless studies have shown the importance of both parents, not only for
children, but for society as a whole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Thomas Simon is a divorced father who has learned first hand how little
regard Iowa courts currently have for the best interests of children

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).

It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Joint Physical Custody for Iowa Children?
May 20, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
By Thomas Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

Most Americans think of cornfields and stable families when they think of
Iowa. But like other states, divorce laws in Iowa currently encourage and
reward family breakdown by favoring custodial parents, usually mothers,
and
special interest groups who desire or profit from removing fathers from
the
lives of their children.

But that may be starting to change. Despite intense lobbying efforts
against
it by the Iowa Bar Association and the "domestic abuse" industry, Iowa
Governor Tom Vilsack (D), a contender as running mate for John Kerry,
signed
into law "An Act Relating To The Awarding of Joint Physical Care of a
Child".

In a press conference today, Vilsack called it the most important bill he
has signed this year, emphasizing the importance of children having two
parents following divorce.

Introduced by the Human Resource Committee Chair, Representative Dan
Boddicker (R), as House File 22, the bill passed the Iowa House by a 59-37
margin on March 17, and passed the Iowa Senate unanimously (49-0, one
absent) on April 5, 2004.

The previously existing 2003 Iowa Code, Custody of Children, Section
598.41,
subsection 5, reads:

Joint physical care may be in the best interest of the child, but joint
legal custody does not require joint physical care. When the court
determines such action would be in the best interest of the child and
would
preserve the relationship between each parent and the child, joint
physical
care may be awarded to both joint custodial parents or physical care may
be
awarded to one joint custodial parent.

That subsection is replaced as follows:

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award
joint
physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either
parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the
best interests of the child.

The bill was initially worded as "shall award joint physical care", but
was
changed to "may award joint physical care", making the presumptiveness of
equal custody less apparent. Also, shared custody remains subject to the
vagaries of a judge's interpretation of "the best interests of the
children", which in practice is often translated to mean "whatever the
mother wants".

The new law is an attempt to force judges to adhere to the laws they were
sworn to uphold by forcing them to explain why they are destroying a
relationship between a child and his parent, usually the father. That
destruction is typically disguised as an "award" of custody to one parent,
something both parents previously had prior to the actions of the state.

Controls sought to limit the acceptable reasons for destroying that
relationship by non-custodial parents are not included in the change to
Iowa
custody law. Popular examples of such reasons include the custodial
parents'
moving children far away, not cooperating, or making false allegations of
"abuse". Neither does the change help the thousands of Iowa fathers
currently deprived of access to their children.

Nevertheless, this change represents a shift in the focus towards divorced
fathers, following decades of increasingly harsh, draconian, and
unconstitutional laws treating them as bottomless wallets and de facto
criminals unworthy of basic human rights. Many fathers are routinely
shocked
to discover how little concern for their relationship with their children
is
shown by the courts, even when the father does not want the divorce, and
even when he has been found guilty of nothing other than "no fault".

Most significantly, this change may mean the tide is beginning to turn
away
from divorce as a windfall for custodial parents and a boon for special
interests, towards minimizing the negative impact of divorce on children.
Countless studies have shown the importance of both parents, not only for
children, but for society as a whole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Thomas Simon is a divorced father who has learned first hand how little
regard Iowa courts currently have for the best interests of children

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Kenneth S. wrote:
This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).


Indeed. The light of public knowledge is very badly needed to stop the
illegal sexist *******s who rule the benches in "family" misandrist court.


It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.

Indeed again. The judges who hate men rarely follow the law, and their
court decision are done in secrecy, to prevent public knowledge.

They will never be ridden out of town on a rail while the public is
uninformed of their wanton destruction of families.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Kenneth S. wrote:
This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).


Indeed. The light of public knowledge is very badly needed to stop the
illegal sexist *******s who rule the benches in "family" misandrist court.


It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.

Indeed again. The judges who hate men rarely follow the law, and their
court decision are done in secrecy, to prevent public knowledge.

They will never be ridden out of town on a rail while the public is
uninformed of their wanton destruction of families.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Kenneth S. wrote:
This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).


Indeed. The light of public knowledge is very badly needed to stop the
illegal sexist *******s who rule the benches in "family" misandrist court.


It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.

Indeed again. The judges who hate men rarely follow the law, and their
court decision are done in secrecy, to prevent public knowledge.

They will never be ridden out of town on a rail while the public is
uninformed of their wanton destruction of families.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Kenneth S. wrote:
This is very encouraging. However, I would urge Iowa fathers to have
written into law a provision requiring that statistics be collected AND
REGULARLY PUBLISHED of what actually happens in custody. That should apply
both in regard to what happens in court and what happens outside court
(since court decisions cast a shadow over supposedly private agreements
between parents about custody).


Indeed. The light of public knowledge is very badly needed to stop the
illegal sexist *******s who rule the benches in "family" misandrist court.


It is all too easy for changes to be made in statutory law, and for
judges to just go on doing what they have always been doing. To disseminate
the overall statistics, and to know what individual judges are doing, is a
very necessary corrective to this tendency.

Indeed again. The judges who hate men rarely follow the law, and their
court decision are done in secrecy, to prevent public knowledge.

They will never be ridden out of town on a rail while the public is
uninformed of their wanton destruction of families.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/