House Study Bill 606
BY (PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY BILL BY
Passed House, Date Passed Senate, Date
Vote: Ayes Nays Vote: Ayes Nays
A BILL FOR
1 An Act relating to joint physical care of children in dissolution
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:
4 TLSB 6133YC 81
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
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.
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
HSB 606 is quite a bit different from HF22 and here is why:
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.
HSB 606 is now HF 2658 and eligible for debate on the floor.
Lobbyist Declarations for HF 2658:
MARCH 13, 2006 15:25:22
HF 2658A bill for an act relating to joint physical care of children indissolution cases. (Formerly HSB 606)Amie Whiteside MARCH 9, 2006For Iowa FathersHarry Whiteside MARCH 9, 2006For Iowa FathersJen Heth MARCH 9, 2006For IA. Fathers .ComMatt Weichers MARCH 9, 2006For IA. Fathers .ComRobert Brandhorst MARCH 9, 2006For Iowa FathersWilliam Smith MARCH 9, 2006For IA. Fathers .ComLyle Krewson MARCH 8, 2006Against National Assn. of Social Workers (NASW)Undecided Sierra Club, Iowa ChapterErika Anderson MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. Coalition Against Sexual AssaultGeorge Appleby MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. State Bar Assn.Jennifer Tyler MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. State Bar Assn.Jessica Norris MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. Coalition Against Sexual AssaultJim Carney MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. State Bar Assn.Lorelei Heisinger MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. Coalition Against Sexual AssaultMatt Eide MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. Coalition Against Sexual AssaultTroy Skinner MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. State Bar Assn.Tyler Baldwin MARCH 7, 2006Against IA. Coalition Against Sexual AssaultBryan Iehl MARCH 6, 2006For IA. Fathers .ComMart Connell MARCH 6, 2006For Children Need Both Parents
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" <email@example.com>Subject: Re: Shared Parenting Bill in IowaDate: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:07:58 -0800
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."
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!
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.)
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.
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.
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!