Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 
House Study Bill 606
 
                                       HOUSE FILE       
                                       BY  (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON
                                            JUDICIARY BILL BY
                                            CHAIRPERSON PAULSEN)
 
 
    Passed House,  Date               Passed Senate, Date             
    Vote:  Ayes        Nays           Vote:  Ayes        Nays         
                 Approved                            
 
                                      A BILL FOR
 
  1 An Act relating to joint physical care of children in dissolution
  2    cases.
  3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
  4 TLSB 6133YC 81
  5 pf/cf/24
 
PAG LIN
 
  1  1    Section 1.  Section 598.41, subsection 5, paragraph a, Code
  1  2 Supplement 2005, is amended to read as follows:
  1  3    a.  If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the
  1  4 court may award joint physical care to both joint custodial
  1  5 parents upon the request of either parent during the
  1  6 proceedings on the initial dissolution petition or during the
  1  7 proceedings on a modification of the original custody order.
  1  8 A rebuttable presumption exists that a request for joint
  1  9 physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the
  1 10 child and the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests
  1 11 on the party denying that joint physical care is in the best
  1 12 interest of the child.  Prior to ruling on the request for the
  1 13 award of joint physical care, the court may require the
  1 14 parents to submit, either individually or jointly, a proposed
  1 15 joint physical care parenting plan.  A proposed joint physical
  1 16 care parenting plan shall address how the parents will make
  1 17 decisions affecting the child, how the parents will provide a
  1 18 home for the child, how the child's time will be divided
  1 19 between the parents and how each parent will facilitate the
  1 20 child's time with the other parent, arrangements in addition
  1 21 to court=ordered child support for the child's expenses, how
  1 22 the parents will resolve major changes or disagreements
  1 23 affecting the child including changes that arise due to the
  1 24 child's age and developmental needs, and any other issues the
  1 25 court may require.  If the court denies the request for joint
  1 26 physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by
  1 27 specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the
  1 28 awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of
  1 29 the child.  In determining the best interest of the child
  1 30 relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care,
  1 31 the court shall consider that the best interest of the child
  1 32 includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and
  1 33 emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct
  1 34 physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result
  1 35 from this contact.
  2  1                           EXPLANATION
  2  2    This bill provides that in awarding joint physical care to
  2  3 parents under the dissolution of marriage chapter, joint
  2  4 physical care may be awarded to both parents based upon a
  2  5 request by either parent either during the proceedings on the
  2  6 initial dissolution petition or during the proceedings on a
  2  7 modification of the original custody order.  The bill creates
  2  8 a rebuttable presumption that a request for joint physical
  2  9 care by either parent is in the best interest of the child and
  2 10 places the burden of proof to rebut the presumption on the
  2 11 party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest
  2 12 of the child.   In determining the best interest of the child
  2 13 relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care,
  2 14 the court is to consider that best interest of the child
  2 15 includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and
  2 16 emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct
  2 17 physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result
  2 18 from this contact.
  2 19 LSB 6133YC 81
  2 20 pf/cf/24

 


__________________
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 

Members,

 

Above is the legislation that IowaFathers.com, Fathers for Equal Rights, and Children Need Both Parents, has been working on for the past several months. 

 

We will be lobbying in Des Moines probably mid to late February and I'll advise members of the specific date within the next week via email.

 

Sincerely,

Bryan Iehl

Founder

IowaFathers.com


__________________
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).
Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #3 
If anyone in or near Cedar Rapids needs a ride, let me know...
I'm about ready to roll...    Are you?
 
-----------------------
Dear Members,
 
We have a date set for the meeting at the Iowa Capitol. Traditionally, we have asked all members of this organization to take one day off of work, jump in their vehicles and meet us at the Iowa Capitol. We are asking as many members as possible to join us at the Iowa Capitol, February 16th from 10am to 2pm to help push HSB606. Even if you are not comfortable talking to legislators, just having your body their is important. Ask family members and friends to join you. Although HF22 was the most important bill we have pushed, HSB606 is very important as well. In the last two years we have found that parents who have existing custody cases are being denied joint physical care even though they requested it. We believe that every parent who request JPC preserves the right to have it. That is why HSB606 is so important and we need all of you to help out. For those of you who have not made the trip I can tell you from experience that you will agree it was worth the effort. It is a rewarding experience to take part in something so important to our children. I need to take a head count so please respond ASAP if you plan to attend. I have the Judiciary Committee members listed below just in case you haven't wrote to then yet, hint hint. Thanks again for your support. I have HSB606 listed below.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Griebel
 
P.S. My email has changed to cnbp@mchsi.com please make a note of it.
 
 
House Study Bill 606
 
BY  (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY BILL BY CHAIRPERSON PAULSEN)

Highlighted are the changes.

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 during the proceedings on the initial dissolution petition or during the proceedings on a modification of the original custody order. A rebuttable presumption exists that a request for joint physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the child and the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests on the party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest of the child.  Prior to ruling on the request for the award of joint physical care, the court may require the parents to submit, either individually or jointly, a proposed joint physical care parenting plan.  A proposed joint physical care parenting plan shall address how the parents will make decisions affecting the child, how the parents will provide a home for the child, how the child's time will be divided between the parents and how each parent will facilitate the child's time with the other parent, arrangements in addition to court ordered child support for the child's expenses, how the parents will resolve major changes or disagreements affecting the child including changes that arise due to the child's age and developmental needs, and any other issues the court may require.  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 interest of the child. 
In determining the best interest of the child relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care, the court shall consider that the best interest of the child includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result from this contact.

EXPLANATION

This bill provides that in awarding joint physical care to parents under the dissolution of marriage chapter, joint physical care may be awarded to both parents based upon a request by either parent either during the proceedings on the initial dissolution petition or during the proceedings on a modification of the original custody order.  The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that a request for joint physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the child and places the burden of proof to rebut the presumption on the party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest of the child. In determining the best interest of the child relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care, the court is to consider that best interest of the child includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result from this contact.
Judiciary Committee Members

· Kraig Paulsen (R, District 35), Chair  Kraig.Paulsen@legis.state.ia.us
· O. Gene Maddox (R, District 59), Vice Chair  Gene.Maddox@legis.state.ia.us
· Kurt Swaim (D, District 94), Ranking Member  Kurt.Swaim@legis.state.ia.us
· Dwayne Alons (R, District 4)  Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us
· Rich Anderson (R, District 97)  Richard.Anderson@legis.state.ia.us
· Deborah Berry (D, District 22)  Deborah.Berry@legis.state.ia.us
· Carmine Boal (R, District 70)  Carmine.Boal@legis.state.ia.us
· Danny Carroll (R, District 75)  Danny.Carroll@legis.state.ia.us
· George Eichhorn (R, District 9)  George.Eichhorn@legis.state.ia.us
· Ro Foege (D, District 29)  Ro.Foege@legis.state.ia.us
· Dave Heaton (R, District 91)  Dave.Heaton@legis.state.ia.us
· Joe Hutter (R, District 82)  Joe.Hutter@legis.state.ia.us
· Pam Jochum (D, District 27)  Pam.Jochum@legis.state.ia.us
· Jeff Kaufmann (R, District 79)  Jeff.Kaufmann@legis.state.ia.us
· Vicki Lensing (D, District 78)  Vicki.Lensing@legis.state.ia.us
· Rick Olson (D, District 68)  Rick.Olson@legis.state.ia.us
· Mark Smith (D, District 43)  Mark.Smith@legis.state.ia.us
· Jodi Tymeson (R, District 73)  Jodi.Tymeson@legis.state.ia.us
· Jim Van Fossen (R, District 84)  James.Van.Fossen@legis.state.ia.us
· Beth Wessel-Kroeschell (D, District 45)  Beth.Wessel-Kroeschell@legis.state.ia.us
· Cindy Winckler (D, District 86)  Cindy.Winckler@legis.state.ia.us

 

How to Copy/paste you letter

· Write your letter in a word program such as Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, or Word Pad.
· Save the letter to a familiar file.
· When you are ready to send your letter, open your letter file, go to edit and click on SELECT ALL.
Your letter should now be highlighted.
· Go to edit and click on COPY.
· On the right top of your screen click on the - box, this will move your letter out of the way.
· Go online and open the e-mail I sent you with the Legislator e-mails.
· Enter a title.
· Click on each e-mail one at a time and the e-mail box will open.
· Make sure your cursor is on the page where you want your letter.
· Go to edit and select PASTE.
· Enter the representatives/senators name and click SEND.
· Go to the next legislator and do the same thing until your done.
 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 2/1/06


__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

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

HSB 606 is quite a bit different from HF22 and here is why:

  1. Adds the terminology "A rebuttable presumption exists that a request for joint physical care by either parent is in the best interest of the child."
    • This creates a presumption that forces a judge to consider an award joint physical care as the first option.
    • HF22 did not create this presumption according to the interpretation of the higher courts.
  2. Adds the terminology "the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests on the party denying that joint physical care is in the best
    interest of the child."
    • This means the party opposing must show why joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.
    • This removes judicial bias when there are two qualified parents.
  3. Adds the terminology "during the proceedings on the initial dissolution petition or during the proceedings on a modification of the original custody order."
    • The law would apply to the initial divorce proceedings.
    • The law would apply to either parent during a modification which, the higher courts have claimed does not apply with HF22.
  4. Adds the terminology "In determining the best interest of the child relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care, the court shall consider that the best interest of the child includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result from this contact."
    • The statute now defines "best interest of the child" for the judge which, as you can see clearly states "the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents."

__________________
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).
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #5 

We need to get this passed!!! Our kniving exes don't like it because it will make them look like the money grubbing dirtbags they are when they are forced to prove that denighing us our parentels rights is in the best interest of our children.

 

If the Democratic party is opposed to it them mabey it's time for their party to go by the wayside as being obsolete in the modern world.


__________________
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  #6 

HSB 606 is now HF 2658 and eligible for debate on the floor.


__________________
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  #7 

Lobbyist Declarations for HF 2658: 

 

MARCH 13, 2006  15:25:22


                          HF 2658
A bill for an act relating to joint physical care of children in
dissolution cases. (Formerly HSB 606)


Amie Whiteside  MARCH 9, 2006
For        Iowa Fathers

Harry Whiteside  MARCH 9, 2006
For        Iowa Fathers

Jen Heth  MARCH 9, 2006
For        IA. Fathers .Com

Matt Weichers  MARCH 9, 2006
For        IA. Fathers .Com

Robert Brandhorst  MARCH 9, 2006
For        Iowa Fathers

William Smith  MARCH 9, 2006
For        IA. Fathers .Com

Lyle Krewson  MARCH 8, 2006
Against    National Assn. of Social Workers (NASW)
Undecided  Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter

Erika Anderson  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. Coalition Against Sexual Assault

George Appleby  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. State Bar Assn.

Jennifer Tyler  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. State Bar Assn.

Jessica Norris  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Jim Carney  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. State Bar Assn.

Lorelei Heisinger  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Matt Eide  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Troy Skinner  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. State Bar Assn.

Tyler Baldwin  MARCH 7, 2006
Against    IA. Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Bryan Iehl  MARCH 6, 2006
For        IA. Fathers .Com

Mart Connell  MARCH 6, 2006
For        Children Need Both Parents


__________________
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).
Rick

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #8 

I am on Glenn Sacks email list and as I get email after email regarding supporting shared parenting bills in other states, I asked him to consider helping with this bill - perhaps someone with more information as to the details could email him?

From: "Glenn Sacks" <glenn@glennsacks.com>
Subject: Re: Shared Parenting Bill in Iowa
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:07:58 -0800

thanks for the info.--what happened with the shared parenting bill that got passed last year?
 
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #9 

Any doubts about our "enemies" can be safely removed looking at the domestic violence and IA Bar Association - we are threatening their "income."  I keep thinking of Jesus attacking the merchants in the temple - these so called "advocates" have an agenda of profit and misery.  Fairness and Civil Rights - something they give lip service when convienent - have no place for children and fathers for these "merchants."

andreamcdannald

Member
Registered:
Posts: 19
Reply with quote  #10 

I think the idea of Mom and Dad raising the child is, of course, normally best.  We do have to examine all the potential outcomes  with this bill.  What if, in some instances, where it is the child's best interest to be with Mom or Dad, the other parent doesn't want to pay support, so much that he or she goes after the parent that seems to be the best to raise the child?  Would there be a fight to show someone unfit?  That could be really ugly.  Some people trying to make their spouse look unfit or crazy for the purpose of getting out of a big child support bill is the potential outcome. I think that determining what is in the best interest of the child is safest because it does not encourage an ugly battle to make the other spouse look bad. Some attorneys will profit much more with this ruling, and the potential outcome of giving the Dad's more opportunity to be with their kids could potentially be thwarted by the money hungry cut throat attorneys willing to harass the heck out of the client's spouse and file file file to have nasty fights in court. It's almost like a watchdog measure for single parents but one that could be twisted into a fabricating exercise.  I don't think its a good idea for this reason. There are so many things to consider on both sides of the issue.  This is a good medium to look at all viewpoints.  Maybe if something could be added to the existing "best interest of the child" benefits of being with fathers. I think they often look at nurturing they get with Mom and although no one on this site is probably like this, it's often that Dad that runs when it comes to raising kids, so Mom automatically results in the raising because Dad is gone.  Focus on the benefits children get with Dad's and I think it would go farther.

Here is an article that includes the not so good effects of divorce on children.  If nothing else we can pray against these things happening to our own children!

http://www.flc.org/hfl/marriage/mar-flf03.htm

 

If reconciliation is a remote possibility for some, here is an excellent website to assist with this:

 

http://www.rejoiceministries.org  ...(hang on to your monitor batman... this one is tough on divorce but has some good truth to it.)

 

 

KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #11 

I think financial considerations drive the industry supporting divorce.  I also believe many women divorce because society has mislead them to believe they will be financially rewarded and "free" from their husband. 

If society was not making it so very easy to divorce and spending so much effort rewarding one party and destroying the other perhaps so many would not seek divorce? 

 

Very few women get to feel the pain Andrea is now feeling as the non-custodial parent.  You have no rights and you have no say with your children.  I feel deeply for Andrea as she is suffering what I, and many others, have suffered.  I hate the system we have in our courts for destroying so many lives.

 

I believe we need to remove all financial incentives for people to divorce and if a person cannot leave their marriage and support their children - they should consider other ways to do so.  I want child support eliminated for this reason.  Since that is not realistic, I at least want to be part of my child's life but I discovered I have no control over where they live, and that daycare has more rights than I do.

Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #12 

http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/   <--- click here NOW...

According to FAFNY, letters and calls from anywhere in the country help because they give the bill attention and show the broad national support for shared parenting. To call the Committee members also, click here.


__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!