Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #1 
House File 2468 - Introduced 



                                       HOUSE FILE      
                                       BY  KAUFMANN and SCHUELLER


    Passed House, Date               Passed Senate, Date            
    Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays        
                 Approved                            

                                      A BILL FOR

  1 An Act relating to modification of an order of child custody
  2    based upon the relocation of a parent awarded physical
  3    custody.
  4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
  5 TLSB 5545YH 82
  6 pf/nh/14

PAG LIN



  1  1    Section 1.  Section 598.21D, Code 2007, is amended to read
  1  2 as follows:
  1  3    598.21D  RELOCATION OF PARENT AS GROUNDS TO MODIFY ORDER OF
  1  4 CHILD CUSTODY == LEVEL OF CARE CONSIDERATION IN MODIFYING.
  1  5    1.  If a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical
  1  6 care or sole legal custody is relocating the residence of the
  1  7 minor child to a location which is one hundred fifty miles or
  1  8 more from the residence of the minor child at the time that
  1  9 custody was awarded, the court may consider the relocation a
  1 10 substantial change in circumstances.
  1 11    2.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  1 12 substantial change in circumstances, in determining the best
  1 13 interest of the child, the court may modify an existing order
  1 14 that awarded joint legal custody and physical care to the
  1 15 relocating parent and instead award joint legal custody and
  1 16 physical care to the nonrelocating parent, if the court finds
  1 17 that, in regard to the level of care provided by each parent,
  1 18 the care provided by the nonrelocating parent is equal to the
  1 19 level of care provided by the relocating parent.  If the court
  1 20 modifies the order and awards joint legal custody and physical
  1 21 care to the nonrelocating parent, the court shall modify the
  1 22 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  1 23 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  1 24 and the relocating parent.  If modified, the order may include
  1 25 a provision for extended visitation during summer vacations
  1 26 and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact between the
  1 27 relocating parent and the minor child.  The modification may
  1 28 include a provision assigning the responsibility for
  1 29 transportation of the minor child for visitation purposes to
  1 30 either or both parents.
  1 31    3.  If the court determines that the relocation is a
  1 32 substantial change in circumstances, and the court modifies
  1 33 the custody order retaining the provisions of the order
  1 34 awarding joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal
  1 35 custody to the relocating parent, the court shall modify the
  2  1 custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as
  2  2 possible, the existing relationship between the minor child
  2  3 and the nonrelocating parent.  If modified, the order may
  2  4 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  2  5 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  2  6 between the nonrelocating parent and the minor child.  The
  2  7 modification may include a provision assigning the
  2  8 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  2  9 visitation purposes to either or both parents.
  2 10    4.  If the court makes a finding of past interference by
  2 11 the a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical care or
  2 12 sole legal custody with the minor child's access to the other
  2 13 parent, the court may order the posting of a cash bond to
  2 14 assure future compliance with the visitation provisions of the
  2 15 decree.  The supreme court shall prescribe guidelines for the
  2 16 forfeiting of the bond and restoration of the bond following
  2 17 forfeiting of the bond.
  2 18                           EXPLANATION
  2 19    This bill amends provisions relating to relocation of a
  2 20 parent as grounds for modification of a child custody order.
  2 21 Current law provides that if a parent who has been awarded
  2 22 joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal custody is
  2 23 relocating the residence of the minor child to a location
  2 24 which is 150 miles or more from the residence of the minor
  2 25 child at the time that custody was awarded, the court may
  2 26 consider the relocation a substantial change in circumstances.
  2 27 The bill provides that if the court determines that the
  2 28 relocation is a substantial change in circumstances, in
  2 29 determining the best interest of the child, the court may
  2 30 modify the existing order that awarded joint legal custody and
  2 31 physical care to the relocating parent and instead award joint
  2 32 legal custody and physical care to the nonrelocating parent,
  2 33 if the court finds that, in regard to the level of care
  2 34 provided by each parent, the care provided by the
  2 35 nonrelocating parent is equal to the level of care provided by
  3  1 the relocating parent.  If the court does modify the order and
  3  2 awards joint legal custody and physical care to the
  3  3 nonrelocating parent, the court is also to modify the custody
  3  4 order to preserve, as nearly as possible, the existing
  3  5 relationship between the minor child and the relocating
  3  6 parent.  Additionally, if the order is modified, the order may
  3  7 include a provision for extended visitation during summer
  3  8 vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact
  3  9 between the relocating parent and the minor child.  The
  3 10 modification may also include a provision assigning the
  3 11 responsibility for transportation of the minor child for
  3 12 visitation purposes to either or both parents.
  3 13    Current law is retained regarding modification of the order
  3 14 in a manner that retains the award of custody with the
  3 15 relocating parent and the provisions relating to preserving
  3 16 the existing relationship with the nonrelocating parent,
  3 17 extended vacations and school breaks, telephone contact, and
  3 18 provision for transportation of the minor child for visitation
  3 19 purposes to either or both parents.
  3 20    The bill amends the provision relating to posting of a cash
  3 21 bond based on past interference by the relocating parent to
  3 22 apply to both parents.
  3 23 LSB 5545YH 82
  3 24 pf/nh/14


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 
This is a huge piece of legislation. We should lobby for this bill this year.

So is this bill:

House File 2467 - Introduced                                       HOUSE FILE                                              BY  KAUFMANN and SCHUELLER    Passed House,  Date               Passed Senate, Date                 Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays                          Approved                                                                  A BILL FOR  1 An Act relating to the holding of a parent in contempt regarding  2    the denial of child visitation and making a penalty  3    applicable.  4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:  5 TLSB 5548HH 82  6 pf/nh/8PAG LIN  1  1    Section 1.  Section 598.23, subsection 1, Code Supplement  1  2 2007, is amended to read as follows:  1  3    1.  If a person against whom a temporary order or final  1  4 decree has been entered willfully disobeys the order or  1  5 decree, the person may be cited and punished by the court for  1  6 contempt and be committed to the county jail for a period of  1  7 time not to exceed thirty days for each offense.  The court  1  8 may find that a person willfully disobeyed the order or decree  1  9 and hold the person in contempt if the person is found to have  1 10 unilaterally decided to deny visitation, as prescribed by the  1 11 order or decree, in response to a non=life=threatening  1 12 emergency.  1 13                           EXPLANATION  1 14    This bill provides that one basis for a finding of contempt  1 15 under the dissolution of marriage and domestic relations Code  1 16 chapter is that a person willfully disobeyed an order or  1 17 decree by unilaterally deciding to deny visitation, as  1 18 prescribed by the order or decree, in response to a  1 19 non=life=threatening emergency.  The punishment for contempt  1 20 is commitment to the county jail for a period not to exceed 30  1 21 days for each offense, or an alternative penalty specified in  1 22 the section.  1 23 LSB 5548HH 82  1 24 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).
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #3 

Yes it is. I went through the legislative bills today and found something like three bills to post today. I've been trying to check twice a week to find any changes.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #4 

I suppose it's agood thing to prevent custodial parent move aways, but I still say we ought to be fighting for equal parent as a right and a responsibility, force the parents to make their own decisions on location and make it easier to travel between parents. In this way if mom and dad has equal custody every other week, then if mom choses to move to texas she'll have to make sure the kids are dads for visitation or throw her in jail. If that is not convienent for her then I guess she'll just have to move back to Iowa.


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

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #5 

This is a great bill except I think we already have something like this already in the law don't we and isn't the radius much less?

jpcitworks

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #6 

The group needs to get behind this bill. It takes the superior care test away from the courts. Something that has been much needed.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!