Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 
See Attachment or below. 

 
Attached Files
doc hf455.doc (42.00 KB, 49 views)


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 
House File 455 - Introduced
 
 
 
                                       HOUSE FILE       
                                       BY  KAUFMANN, ABDUL=SAMAD,
                                           SCHUELLER, and SANDS
 
 
    Passed House,  Date               Passed Senate, Date             
    Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays         
                 Approved                            
 
                                      A BILL FOR
 
  1 An Act relating to child custody and visitation.
  2 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
  3 TLSB 1673YH 83
  4 pf/nh/8
 
PAG LIN
 
 
 
  1  1    Section 1.  NEW SECTION.  256.47  EXTRACURRICULAR
  1  2 ACTIVITIES == CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE.
  1  3    A school=related extracurricular activity shall not be
  1  4 required for a student if it interferes with the custody
  1  5 arrangement of a student when the extracurricular activity is
  1  6 scheduled outside of regular school hours.  If a scheduled
  1  7 school=related extracurricular activity interferes with a
  1  8 noncustodial parent's custody arrangement, the parent shall
  1  9 notify an appropriate school official and the student shall be
  1 10 excused without penalty from attending the specific activity.
  1 11 This section does not apply to special events such as
  1 12 performances, games, and competitions.  For the purposes of
  1 13 this section, "school=related extracurricular activity" means
  1 14 an activity that takes place outside of regular school hours
  1 15 whether or not it is related to the student's academic
  1 16 curriculum.  The state board shall adopt rules relating to the
  1 17 implementation of this section.
  1 18    Sec. 2.  Section 598.21D, Code 2009, is amended to read as
  1 19 follows:
  1 20    598.21D  RELOCATION OF PARENT AS GROUNDS TO MODIFY ORDER OF
  1 21 CHILD CUSTODY == LEVEL OF CARE CONSIDERATION IN MODIFYING.
  1 22    1.  If a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical
  1 23 care or sole legal custody is relocating the residence of the
  1 24 minor child to a location which is one hundred fifty miles or
  1 25 more from the residence of the minor child at the time that
  1 26 custody was awarded, the court may consider the relocation a
  1 27 substantial change in circumstances.
  1 28    2.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  1 29 substantial change in circumstances, in determining the best
  1 30 interest of the child, the court may modify an existing order
  1 31 that awarded joint legal custody and physical care to the
  1 32 relocating parent and instead award joint legal custody and
  1 33 physical care to the nonrelocating parent, if the court finds
  1 34 that, in regard to the level of care provided by each parent,
  1 35 the care provided by the nonrelocating parent is equal to the
  2  1 level of care provided by the relocating parent.  If the court
  2  2 modifies the order and awards joint legal custody and physical
  2  3 care to the nonrelocating parent, the court shall modify the
  2  4 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  2  5 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  2  6 and the relocating parent.  If modified, the order may include
  2  7 a provision for extended visitation during summer vacations
  2  8 and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact between the
  2  9 relocating parent and the minor child.  The modification may
  2 10 include a provision assigning the responsibility for
  2 11 transportation of the minor child for visitation purposes to
  2 12 either or both parents.
  2 13    3.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  2 14 substantial change in circumstances, and the court modifies
  2 15 the custody order retaining the provisions of the order
  2 16 awarding joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal
  2 17 custody to the relocating parent, the court shall modify the
  2 18 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  2 19 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  2 20 and the nonrelocating parent.  If modified, the order may
  2 21 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  2 22 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  2 23 between the nonrelocating parent and the minor child.  The
  2 24 modification may include a provision assigning the
  2 25 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  2 26 visitation purposes to either or both parents.
  2 27    4.  If the court makes a finding of past interference by
  2 28 the a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical care or
  2 29 sole legal custody with the minor child's access to the other
  2 30 parent, the court may order the posting of a cash bond to
  2 31 assure future compliance with the visitation provisions of the
  2 32 decree.  The supreme court shall prescribe guidelines for the
  2 33 forfeiting of the bond and restoration of the bond following
  2 34 forfeiting of the bond.
  2 35    Sec. 3.  Section 598.23, subsection 1, Code 2009, is
  3  1 amended to read as follows:
  3  2    1.  If a person against whom a temporary order or final
  3  3 decree has been entered willfully disobeys the order or
  3  4 decree, the person may be cited and punished by the court for
  3  5 contempt and be committed to the county jail for a period of
  3  6 time not to exceed thirty days for each offense.  The court
  3  7 may find that a person willfully disobeyed the order or decree
  3  8 and hold the person in contempt if the person is found to have
  3  9 unilaterally decided to deny visitation, as prescribed by the
  3 10 order or decree, in response to a non=life=threatening
  3 11 emergency.
  3 12    Sec. 4.  Section 598.41, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  3 13 the following new subsection:
  3 14    NEW SUBSECTION.  7A.  Unless the court finds that such a
  3 15 provision is not in the best interest of the child, in any
  3 16 custody order or decree in which the parents are awarded joint
  3 17 legal custody, the order or decree shall provide that each
  3 18 parent shall offer the other parent the opportunity for
  3 19 additional time with the child before making other
  3 20 arrangements for temporary care of the child if, during the
  3 21 time a parent is otherwise responsible for providing physical
  3 22 care of the child, the parent is unable to provide such
  3 23 physical care for a period of time exceeding eight consecutive
  3 24 hours.
  3 25                           EXPLANATION
  3 26    This bill includes provisions relating to custody and
  3 27 visitation of a child.
  3 28    The bill allows students to be excused from school-related
  3 29 extracurricular activities if the activity interferes with
  3 30 scheduled visitation with a noncustodial parent.  The bill
  3 31 requires that when a parent informs a school official of a
  3 32 conflict between an extracurricular activity scheduled outside
  3 33 regular school hours and the student's custody arrangement
  3 34 with a noncustodial parent, the student will be excused from
  3 35 the activity without penalty.  The bill provides exceptions
  4  1 for special events such as performances, games, and
  4  2 competitions.  The bill covers all school=related
  4  3 extracurricular activities, whether or not the activities are
  4  4 related to the student's academic curriculum.  The bill
  4  5 requires the state board of education to adopt rules that will
  4  6 enforce the bill.
  4  7    The bill amends provisions relating to relocation of a
  4  8 parent as grounds for modification of a child custody order.
  4  9 Current law provides that if a parent who has been awarded
  4 10 joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal custody is
  4 11 relocating the residence of the minor child to a location
  4 12 which is 150 miles or more from the residence of the minor
  4 13 child at the time that custody was awarded, the court may
  4 14 consider the relocation a substantial change in circumstances.
  4 15 The bill provides that if the court determines that the
  4 16 relocation is a substantial change in circumstances, in
  4 17 determining the best interest of the child, the court may
  4 18 modify the existing order that awarded joint legal custody and
  4 19 physical care to the relocating parent and instead award joint
  4 20 legal custody and physical care to the nonrelocating parent,
  4 21 if the court finds that, in regard to the level of care
  4 22 provided by each parent, the care provided by the
  4 23 nonrelocating parent is equal to the level of care provided by
  4 24 the relocating parent.  If the court does modify the order and
  4 25 awards joint legal custody and physical care to the
  4 26 nonrelocating parent, the court is also to modify the custody
  4 27 order to preserve, as nearly as possible, the existing
  4 28 relationship between the minor child and the relocating
  4 29 parent.  Additionally, if the order is modified, the order may
  4 30 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  4 31 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  4 32 between the relocating parent and the minor child.  The
  4 33 modification may also include a provision assigning the
  4 34 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  4 35 visitation purposes to either or both parents.
  5  1    Current law is retained regarding modification of the order
  5  2 in a manner that retains the award of custody with the
  5  3 relocating parent and the provisions relating to preserving
  5  4 the existing relationship with the nonrelocating parent,
  5  5 extended vacations and school breaks, telephone contact, and
  5  6 provision for transportation of the minor child for visitation
  5  7 purposes to either or both parents.
  5  8    The bill amends the provision relating to posting of a cash
  5  9 bond based on past interference by the relocating parent to
  5 10 apply to both parents.
  5 11    The bill provides that one basis for a finding of contempt
  5 12 under the dissolution of marriage and domestic relations Code
  5 13 chapter is that a person willfully disobeyed an order or
  5 14 decree by unilaterally deciding to deny visitation, as
  5 15 prescribed by the order or decree, in response to a
  5 16 non=life=threatening emergency.  The punishment for contempt
  5 17 is commitment to the county jail for a period not to exceed 30
  5 18 days for each offense, or an alternative penalty specified in
  5 19 the section.
  5 20    The bill also directs that, unless the court finds that it
  5 21 is not in the best interest of the child, any custody order or
  5 22 decree in which the parents are awarded joint legal custody
  5 23 shall provide that each parent shall offer the other parent
  5 24 the opportunity for additional time with the child before
  5 25 making other arrangements for temporary care of the child if,
  5 26 during the time a parent is otherwise responsible for
  5 27 providing physical care of the child, the parent is unable to
  5 28 provide such physical care for a period of time exceeding
  5 29 eight consecutive hours.
  5 30 LSB 1673YH 83
  5 31 pf/nh/8

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
damillage

Member
Registered:
Posts: 29
Reply with quote  #3 

Does the last section that says they would have to offer if the parent can't provide physical care of 8 hours mean..........that if the ex takes vacation or is away for more than 8 hours that the other parent will have that time without going to court or will it have to modified in each dissolution decree???? 

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #4 

Yes, if your former takes a vacation or is gone for more than 8 hours and does not offer you the opportunity to care for the children, she would be in contempt of court for violation of this statute.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
JamesC

Member
Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #5 
This bill sounds like it encompasses my problem as well. Throughout the divorce, my ex was trying to add anything she could to the decree that would allow her to move my child 3 hours away.

Even if she moves the allowed 150 miles away our arangement isn't going to work. It is only a matter of time before she moves. The only reason she wants to move is to be closer to her parents. My attorney informed me after the fact that this reason would be good enough for a judge. Does this bill say the same thing or does it say that she is going to need a better reason to move out of the DSM area with our daughter?

I am terrible at reading legal documents so I apologize the answer is obvious.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #6 

If this bill passes and gets signed into law it will help you.  Currently, the law reads the Court can modify if a substantial change in circumstances applies.  However, under the current law, you must show the ability to administer "Superior Care" over the children.  If passed, this bill changes the "Superior Care" rule to an "Equal Care" rule putting the modification on equal grounds.  This means if the custodial parent decides to move, it wont be an automatic denial of a change of custody like it is now.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Bernice

Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #7 

I am new at this so please be patient.  Has the house bill been presented?  If so when will it come up for debate?  Who do I need to contact to show my support for this bill?  Thank you! Bernice


__________________
Bernice Griffith Knoke
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #8 
March 3, 2009Subcommittee, Huser, Kaufmann, and Willems.


The bill was assigned to subcommittee on March 3, 2009.  We need to contact Rep. Huser, Rep. Kaufmann, and Rep. Willems and ask for their support of the bill.

Geri.Huser@legis.state.ia.us

jeff.kaufmann@legis.state.ia.us

nate.willems@legis.state.ia.us



__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #9 
Still new - but onboard - is it too late to contact the committee in support of this bill? I'm understanding most of it, I can foresee the Iowa State Board Of Education having some issues with it perhaps. Sports is "everything" to a lot of schools no matter what. Even coming before religion. The relocation issue - if reviewed in each case, and fairly considered is a good thing. The contempt issues for interference with visitation is a "win / win" for all and I fully support this. We have had at least 6 or more of these recently and are at a loss as to how to handle them. Also the 8-hr thing might be a fair option for parents to consider. In short, most of this I do support - then again, will it still depend on the judge, etc..
Will be writing more soon for help with several issues.
momofthree

Member
Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #10 
I have emailed each of the supporters as well as our local representative in the house. He fully supports File 455.  He has agreed to ask for support of his fellow collegues. I have offered to go to Des Moines and speak before the house and share our story on how this would benefit my step daughters to have this passed.  If I am needed to be in Des Moines, they have my information to contact me and I am there. There are so many ways that this bill is a win/win for the "noncustodial" parents when there is interference with their visitation.

dad3

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #11 
The Children's Rights Council of Iowa has explained the benefits of this bill to Iowa children outweigh the potential harm to Iowa children of this bill from lines 11-12(excusing visitation denials for performances, games, etc) to the subcommittee members and only Rep Kaufmann has replied, indicating it is up to Rep Huser to call a subcommittee meeting.  What is the fastest way for the bill to move forward at this point?
momofthree

Member
Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #12 

I really don't think that there is a fast way to get this bill passed. It will all just take some time and patience.

jmposts

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 121
Reply with quote  #13 
The pendulum is swinging and legislature is fully aware of this fact. 
dad3

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #14 
I found out that not a single man has received a reply from Representative Huser but Rep. Huser did reply to two women, a niece and sister of one of our members today and the response to the women were similar to the following:
"Thank you for your e-mail.

I have asked the Family Law division of the Iowa Bar to review this
legislation.  I am uncertain how the changes set out will impact current
practices or how the language in the bill will be applied in all
Dissolution and Child custody matters.

I understand that this is a very important issue and although I don't
believe we will be able to address the situation this year I look
forward to continuing my work on the bill.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Geri D. Huser"

The member then asked  me if Rep. Huser only replies to men.  Well, perhaps we should encourage more of our sisters, nieces, daughters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers to write Rep. Huser at Geri.Huser@legis.state.ia.us and to please support 455 and to not wait for more Iowa children to die from legislative inaction.  The majority of youth suicides come from fatherless homes and Rep Huser is the representative from the central Iowa area known to have a particularly bad problem with youth suicide.  The problem of fatherless homes is well-known; just how much more studying do we really need to do on it?  I think the time has come for people to let Rep Huser know that we need action, not stall tactics.  Can I count on you all to send Rep Huser an email?  Assuming you are female, that is, since apparently Rep Huser could care less about the viewpoint from any men.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #15 
It sounds like the typical "legislation moves slow maybe next year" remark in not so many words.  I'll contact Rep. Huser tomorrow and let members know if she responds.  I promise you this, when Republicans regain control of the Iowa House, we will not have this problem!!!

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
bigEpappa

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #16 

WMT AM600 has meet your legislators on Friday.  It rotates from either 10am or at 4 or 5 pm.  Listen to WMT and call them on Friday.  It will be a democrat and a republican.  This is an opportunity to ask them publicly where they stand.  If you are able to get into the show early enough we may be able to create a landslide of calls on this topic and it will create a lot of future discussion on this show and others around the community. 


__________________
bigEpappa
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #17 

NewsRadio 600 WMT Studio Call-in Numbers:
319-365-0600 
800-332-5401
*600 on your US Cellular Phone


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #18 
To anyone of interest re:my personal correspondence with this subcommittee. Yesterday 3/18/09 afternoon, I hadn't much time but did send a quick e-mail to G.Huser w/cc to J.Kaufmann and N.Willems. I received an initial response 10 minutes later from G.Huser and I really don't know if it was a "general" answer sent or if he was actually reading his e-mail. Reason being is that in my e-mail I posed the request that if they responded I would like to know as to whether they had personally read my e-mail and not just sent me an automated/general response. And in the first reply I received it stated that - yes, I have read your e-mail and I appreciate your comments. He then requested that any information I had concerning the Iowa Bar Association be sent to him. That was it, very short. I again replyed 25 minutes later, thanked him for the quick response, and as to any Ia Bar Assoc. "info", I declined at this time. I then stated that after reading his response if this was his entire answer that I had posed on his position of the House File, etc.. I received a 2nd response 38 minutes later and will continue in a 2nd post here as I don't want to throw out too much reading at one time. Stay tuned.
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #19 
2nd post re:e-mail correspondence with legislators. His last reply as follows: I apologize if my previous email did not address your specific concerns on HF455. I think that trying to address your question and issues is difficult to do via email. I would be happy to give you a call or meet with you over the next few days in Altoona. I am very interested in truly understanding your concerns. Please contact me @ **** or provide me with a number to contact you.
ANY INPUT ON THIS WOULD BE APPRECIATED. Also due to the fact that being new, and not knowing exactly "what" has been happening over the past few years, not a big knowledge regarding the legal system and how it works, case/hx, etc.. this will be a disadvantage to me. So if there is anyone interested in tag-teaming with me on this one, let me know. I am very interested also in finding someone to discuss these things (knowledge, hx, etc..) at a future date and I don't know if coming to one of the meetings, which is a distance for me-the closest would likely be CedarRapids, would be beneficial in that way unless someone had some extra time to spend with me.
I am tentatively planning on attending some of the forums on Saturday and will need to see where Altoona is in regards to my location. I know this is very short notice, but any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #20 
Our issues have been discussed enough in the public though forums and news-media coverage that the general public seems supportive.   This is why talking at forums is so important.

If I can do it anyone can. I simply wrote a quick speech and read it to the panel. When I spoke it was on JPC.  However HF455 is about changing several loopholes in the law exploited by custodial parents to alienate children. 

Your dedication has fired me up to go speak at the upcoming Cedar Falls forum this Saturday @ 10:00 a.m.  As a grandparent, maybe they will listen to me.  I must keep trying!

Good Luck Flowers!  Please keep us posted.

__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
flowers

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 106
Reply with quote  #21 
Update:I did receive a reply this morning from J.Kaufmann, simply stating that he is a co-sponsor of the bill so his strong support is evident and on the record. I appreciated his response.
Regarding the forums tomorrow, God willing, I do plan on speaking at them if all goes accordingly. I'll need to write my thoughts late tonight and get up early tomorrow, but Winston-you're right-we have to keep trying. I may be somewhat still in the dark as to policy & procedure, news, and just what "has' been going on - not only in Iowa - but across America on this front.
I'd also like to address the JPC if that's still on the table for that is a big one to me. Again, any tips appreciated. I am a grandparent as well, and one good preacher when I try.
Any thoughts on speaking with Geri?
My thanks to those who've built and maintained this website.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #22 
You go folks!! This is exactly what we need. Your kind of participation is what makes things happen sooner and in a forward direction. Good Luck. You can't go wrong if you speak from the heart on this issue.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #23 

Legislative Action Alert

March 26, 2009 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!!! House File 455 is still in subcommittee and with enough letters of support it can make it out of the committee and be voted upon by the entire Iowa House. 
 
This bill provides several important changes in the current law concerning custodial parent move-aways with the children, replacing "superior care" rule with "equal care" rule, consequences for unilateral decision making, and establishing right of first refusal. You may read the modified HF 455 at bottom of page.

The bill was assigned to subcommittee on March 3, 2009.  We need to contact Rep. Huser, Rep. Kaufmann, Rep. Willems, Rep. Adbul-Samad, and Rep. McCarthy NOW and ask for them to pass this bill out of subcommittee and enact this bill this year by including it in the Standings Bill.
 
Please ask your family and friends to also send emails of support for us to enact this legislation this year and invite them to personally visit via these legislators at the Capitol in Des Moines Monday through Thursday.
 
For tracking purposes, please respond to this email or send notice to support@IowaFathers.com  if you intend to follow through with an email to these legislators below.  It is imperative while talking to these legislators that we have an idea of how many concerned citizens voiced their opinion!

Geri.Huser@legis.state.ia.us

jeff.kaufmann@legis.state.ia.us

nate.willems@legis.state.ia.us

ako.abdul-samad@legis.state.ia.us
 
Kevin.McCarthy@legis.state.ia.us
 
 
Sample Email Suggestion:
 
Subject: HF 455
 
I support House File 455 in its simplified form since it has reasonable measures to help Iowa children see both sides of their families.  Thousands of Iowa children could benefit if this bill was enacted in its simplified form.  Please support and enact this bill this year by including it in the Standings Bill.  

Your name,
Your full mailing address,
Your daytime phone number
 
 
 
Simplifications/changes to House File 455 include the following:
 
1. Deletion of the first paragraph ( Section 1.  NEW SECTION.  256.47  EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES == CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE.);
 
2. The removal of in favor of existing Iowa law paragraph 4 ( posting of a cash  bond based on past interference by the relocating parent);
 
3. Changed bill language regarding 598.21D RELOCATION OF PARENT..., paragraph 2: "...responsibility for transportation of the minor child for visitation purposes to the parent moving the minor child away from the other parent."  This change is consistent with page 19 of the Children in the Middle class booklet (The Center for Divorce Education, divorce-education.com, required class for divorcing parents in Iowa, Endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges).
 


 
House File 455      
 
 
 
                                          HOUSE FILE       
                                          BY  KAUFMANN, ABDUL=SAMAD,
                                              SCHUELLER, and SANDS
 
 
       Passed House,  Date               Passed Senate, Date             
       Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays         
                    Approved                            
 
                                         A BILL FOR
 
     1 An Act relating to child custody and visitation.
     2 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
     3 TLSB 1673YH 83
     4 pf/nh/8
 
PAG LIN
 
 
 
  1 18    Sec. 2.  Section 598.21D, Code 2009, is amended to read as
  1 19 follows:
  1 20    598.21D  RELOCATION OF PARENT AS GROUNDS TO MODIFY ORDER OF
  1 21 CHILD CUSTODY == LEVEL OF CARE CONSIDERATION IN MODIFYING.
  1 22    1.  If a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical
  1 23 care or sole legal custody is relocating the residence of the
  1 24 minor child to a location which is one hundred fifty miles or
  1 25 more from the residence of the minor child at the time that
  1 26 custody was awarded, the court may consider the relocation a
  1 27 substantial change in circumstances.
  1 28    2.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  1 29 substantial change in circumstances, in determining the best
  1 30 interest of the child, the court may modify an existing order
  1 31 that awarded joint legal custody and physical care to the
  1 32 relocating parent and instead award joint legal custody and
  1 33 physical care to the nonrelocating parent, if the court finds
  1 34 that, in regard to the level of care provided by each parent,
  1 35 the care provided by the nonrelocating parent is equal to the
  2  1 level of care provided by the relocating parent.  If the court
  2  2 modifies the order and awards joint legal custody and physical
  2  3 care to the nonrelocating parent, the court shall modify the
  2  4 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  2  5 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  2  6 and the relocating parent.  If modified, the order may include
  2  7 a provision for extended visitation during summer vacations
  2  8 and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact between the
  2  9 relocating parent and the minor child.  The modification shall
  2 10 include a provision assigning the responsibility for
  2 11 transportation of the minor child for visitation purposes to
  2 12 the parent moving the child away from the other parent.
  2 13    3.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  2 14 substantial change in circumstances, and the court modifies
  2 15 the custody order retaining the provisions of the order
  2 16 awarding joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal
  2 17 custody to the relocating parent, the court shall modify the
  2 18 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  2 19 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  2 20 and the nonrelocating parent.  If modified, the order may
  2 21 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  2 22 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  2 23 between the nonrelocating parent and the minor child.  The
  2 24 modification may include a provision assigning the
  2 25 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  2 26 visitation purposes to either or both parents.
  2 27    4.  If the court makes a finding of past interference by
  2 28 the a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical care or
  2 29 sole legal custody with the minor child's access to the other
  2 30 parent, the court may order the posting of a cash bond to
  2 31 assure future compliance with the visitation provisions of the
  2 32 decree.  The supreme court shall prescribe guidelines for the
  2 33 forfeiting of the bond and restoration of the bond following
  2 34 forfeiting of the bond.
  2 35    Sec. 3.  Section 598.23, subsection 1, Code 2009, is
  3  1 amended to read as follows:
  3  2    1.  If a person against whom a temporary order or final
  3  3 decree has been entered willfully disobeys the order or
  3  4 decree, the person may be cited and punished by the court for
  3  5 contempt and be committed to the county jail for a period of
  3  6 time not to exceed thirty days for each offense.  The court
  3  7 may find that a person willfully disobeyed the order or decree
  3  8 and hold the person in contempt if the person is found to have
  3  9 unilaterally decided to deny visitation, as prescribed by the
  3 10 order or decree, in response to a non=life=threatening
  3 11 emergency.
  3 12    Sec. 4.  Section 598.41, Code 2009, is amended by adding
  3 13 the following new subsection:
  3 14    NEW SUBSECTION.  7A.  Unless the court finds that such a
  3 15 provision is not in the best interest of the child, in any
  3 16 custody order or decree in which the parents are awarded joint
  3 17 legal custody, the order or decree shall provide that each
  3 18 parent shall offer the other parent the opportunity for
  3 19 additional time with the child before making other
  3 20 arrangements for temporary care of the child if, during the
  3 21 time a parent is otherwise responsible for providing physical
  3 22 care of the child, the parent is unable to provide such
  3 23 physical care for a period of time exceeding eight consecutive
  3 24 hours.
  3 25                           EXPLANATION
  3 26    This bill includes provisions relating to custody and
  3 27 visitation of a child.
  4  7    The bill amends provisions relating to relocation of a
  4  8 parent as grounds for modification of a child custody order.
  4  9 Current law provides that if a parent who has been awarded
  4 10 joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal custody is
  4 11 relocating the residence of the minor child to a location
  4 12 which is 150 miles or more from the residence of the minor
  4 13 child at the time that custody was awarded, the court may
  4 14 consider the relocation a substantial change in circumstances.
  4 15 The bill provides that if the court determines that the
  4 16 relocation is a substantial change in circumstances, in
  4 17 determining the best interest of the child, the court may
  4 18 modify the existing order that awarded joint legal custody and
  4 19 physical care to the relocating parent and instead award joint
  4 20 legal custody and physical care to the nonrelocating parent,
  4 21 if the court finds that, in regard to the level of care
  4 22 provided by each parent, the care provided by the
  4 23 nonrelocating parent is equal to the level of care provided by
  4 24 the relocating parent.  If the court does modify the order and
  4 25 awards joint legal custody and physical care to the
  4 26 nonrelocating parent, the court is also to modify the custody
  4 27 order to preserve, as nearly as possible, the existing
  4 28 relationship between the minor child and the relocating
  4 29 parent.  Additionally, if the order is modified, the order may
  4 30 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  4 31 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  4 32 between the relocating parent and the minor child.  The
  4 33 modification shall also include a provision assigning the
  4 34 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  4 35 visitation purposes to the parent moving the child away from the other    
  4 36 parent.
  5  1    Current law is retained regarding modification of the order
  5  2 in a manner that retains the award of custody with the
  5  3 relocating parent and the provisions relating to preserving
  5  4 the existing relationship with the nonrelocating parent,
  5  5 extended vacations and school breaks, telephone contact, and
  5  6 provision for transportation of the minor child for visitation
  5  7 purposes to either or both parents.
  5 11    The bill provides that one basis for a finding of contempt
  5 12 under the dissolution of marriage and domestic relations Code
  5 13 chapter is that a person willfully disobeyed an order or
  5 14 decree by unilaterally deciding to deny visitation, as
  5 15 prescribed by the order or decree, in response to a
  5 16 non=life=threatening emergency.  The punishment for contempt
  5 17 is commitment to the county jail for a period not to exceed 30
  5 18 days for each offense, or an alternative penalty specified in
  5 19 the section.
  5 20    The bill also directs that, unless the court finds that it
  5 21 is not in the best interest of the child, any custody order or
  5 22 decree in which the parents are awarded joint legal custody
  5 23 shall provide that each parent shall offer the other parent
  5 24 the opportunity for additional time with the child before
  5 25 making other arrangements for temporary care of the child if,
  5 26 during the time a parent is otherwise responsible for
  5 27 providing physical care of the child, the parent is unable to
  5 28 provide such physical care for a period of time exceeding
  5 29 eight consecutive hours.
  5 30 LSB 1673YH 83
  5 31 pf/nh/8


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
JamesC

Member
Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #24 
I received a couple responses from J. Kaufmann but he was the only one to do so. As stated before, he told me that he was a sponsor of the bill and in full support of it.

He strongly hinted that the democratic members of the subcommittee have thus far been reluctant to meet and discuss HF 455. Until this occurs it will stay in subcommittee. Since the democrats are in the majority there is little that Rep. Kaufmann can do to speed up the process.

Just thought I should pass that along.

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #25 

Thanks James.  I've dealt with legislators of both parties for several years and I don't understand why the Democrats refuse to support fathers having equal rights with their children. 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #26 
Unfortunatley I cannot support this bill because I believe it violates the constitutional forbiddance of government interfierance with free movement between the 50 states, and that using child custody as a possible punishment is a violation of the constitution. I also do not beliee location proves parentage and it is just another unfair wy to descriminate for no reason, however I do believe that both parents should still be required to either make arrangements for the prior court ordered visitation, or modify the decree to change visitation not custody. Both parents can still keep the same custody but have different visitation.

I would support the bill if it were rewroded to say the court may modifiy visitation of the parties and not custody.

__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #27 

I don't know why democrate refuse to support us either other then their preferance for welth redistrubution.

I am working to change this in that party.

and Iron Eagle your right the gov doen't have the right to interfear with travel between state just as they don't have the right to take a child away from a loving parrent or take away ones hard earned income to give to someone else.




__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #28 
The bill doesn't infringe on anyones right to travel.  It simply affords parents equal footing by removing the "Superior Care" rule.

Under the current law, the custodial parents right to travel trumps the child's right to maintain a relationship with the non-custodial parent and vice versa.  How is that fair and constitutional?

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Cyfan63

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #29 
I also have to disagree with Iron Eagle.  This bill does not restrict a custodial parents right to travel.  My son was taken away from me due to the fact that his mother (who had physical custody of our son) chose to meet a Canadian off the Internet, she became pregnant, moved to Canada for 3 months abandoning our son to her parents so that she could have her new baby in Canada.  She wanted to move to Canada with Beau (our son).  I went to court to modify physical custody from her to me.  I was unsuccessful in that I was not able to prove I could provide Superior Care, which by the way is a SUBJECTIVE word/term.  A person can find no uniform definition of this in the Iowa Code.  Subjective can mean different things for different judges, just depending on what side of the bed they get up on that morning.  What right and authority does the state possess when they tell me that I have to prove I can provide Superior care for my son, which we did at the court hearing but again because the word in itself is subjective the district judge determined I had not done enough to prove my case.   Now my son is in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, and let me remind everyone, Canada is not a part of the United States it is a separate country, where he has been being abused by the Canadian boyfriend.  My son's mother has consistently put her interests in front of those our son's.  So now I am back to square one.

Bryan
leglegl321

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #30 
If you believe that children need both parents, then you should support this bill.  We all know that in the present situation, a "custodial" parent can move out of state for the most insignificant reasons, and thereby do irreparable harm and damage to their children, by effectively removing the other parent from their lives.  This is often done for nothing other than retaliation, hate, and spite.

This bill would put both parents on an even footing, in the event of a parent trying to relocate.  Maybe a parent will then think twice before putting themselves in front of their children.

Keep up the good work, Bryan, and thank you from all the parents who value being a part of their children's lives....
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #31 
Just for the record I do support this bill.

I could be making a ton more money in another state in my feild but my children are worth more then money to me and choose to stay so I can be closer to where my child lives. I wish it could be closer but she lives in an area that is very economicaly depressed and there is nothing for me there so 2 hr drive is doable.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #32 
HF 455 is a great start at equalizing the family court system.

__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #33 

This bill is still alive and we are going to push it again this year.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!