Opinion ID: 1832878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Traditional Approach of Iowa Appellate Courts to Joint Physical Care.

Text: For decades, Iowa appellate courts have disfavored joint physical care arrangements in dissolution cases as not in the best interest of children. In In re Marriage of Burham, 283 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 1979), this court outlined reasons against divided custody. Specifically, the court cited Iowa precedent for the proposition that divided custody is destructive of discipline, induces a feeling of not belonging to either parent, and in some instances can permit one parent to sow seeds of discontent concerning the other. Id. at 272. Although Burham referred to divided custody, later cases made it clear that the underlying rationale regarding the best interest of children applied to cases involving joint physical care. In re Marriage of Roberts, 545 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa Ct.App.1996); In re Marriage of Brainard, 523 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994); In re Marriage of Coulter, 502 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Iowa Ct.App.1993). These cases have generally emphasized that the best interest of children is promoted by stability and continuity. Although a child's best interests will be served by associating with both parents, an attempt to provide equal physical care may be harmfully disruptive in depriving a child of a necessary sense of stability. In re Marriage of Muell, 408 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa Ct.App.1987). As a result, Iowa appellate courts have stated divided physical care is strongly disfavored as not in the best interest of children except in the most unusual of circumstances. Roberts, 545 N.W.2d at 342; Brainard, 523 N.W.2d at 615; Coulter, 502 N.W.2d at 170-71.