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

Heading: Legislative Action Regarding Joint Physical Care.

Text: The Iowa legislature has shown recent interest in joint physical care as a potential alternative in dissolution cases. In 1997 and again in 2004, the legislature amended the Iowa Code to mandate certain procedures regarding the request, award, and denial of joint physical care. In 1997, the legislature for the first time defined joint physical care. The legislature further stated that a district court may consider joint physical care upon the application of either party. 1997 Iowa Acts ch. 175, § 199 (previously codified at Iowa Code § 598.1(4) (2005)). The 1997 legislation, however, did not contain any substantive standards for determining when joint physical care might be appropriate, but only stated that district courts may consider the alternative. As a result, the amendment was a restatement of existing law. In 2004, the legislature again revisited the issue of joint physical care by amending Iowa Code section 598.41(5) to read, in relevant part: 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. . . . 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. 2004 Iowa Acts ch. 1169, § 1 (now codified at Iowa Code § 598.41(5) (2005)). Like the 1997 amendment, the 2004 amendment did not contain a new standard to be employed by the courts in considering whether to award joint physical care. It simply provides that a party interested in joint physical care should request it from the court, and if the court denies joint physical care, it should make findings of fact and conclusions of law that such an alternative was not in the best interest of the child, which is the traditional standard in child custody matters. This court has not had occasion to consider the implication of the 1997 and 2004 amendments. In In re Marriage of Ellis, 705 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa Ct.App.2005), however, the court of appeals considered the impact of the amendments on Iowa law. In that case, the court of appeals rejected the claim that the new statutory provisions created a presumption in favor of joint physical care. Id. at 101-02. On the other hand, the court of appeals came to the conclusion that the amendments had the effect of reversing the traditional disfavor against joint physical care by Iowa courts. Id. at 101. According to the court of appeals, while joint physical care is no longer disfavored, it is still not a preferred custodial arrangement. Id. at 101-02. We agree with the court of appeals that the 1997 and 2004 legislation did not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care. There is simply nothing in the language of the amendments that supports such an assertion. Indeed, the Iowa legislative action in 1997 and 2004 is strikingly different from action in other states where presumptions in favor of joint physical care were enacted into law. Further, it is clear that the Iowa legislature knows how to enact substantive standards in family law matters. With respect to joint custody, the legislature has declared that if the court does not grant joint custody, it shall cite clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interests of a child. Iowa Code § 598.41(2)( b ). No similar language appears in the joint physical care provisions of Iowa law. We disagree, however, with the court of appeals as to whether the 1997 and 2004 amendments have affected any change in substantive law. While the amendments clearly require that courts consider joint physical care at the request of any party and that it make specific findings when joint physical care is rejected, the legislation reiterates the traditional standard the best interest of the childwhich appellate courts in the past have found rarely served by joint physical care. The amendments only require the courts to consider and explain the basis of decisions to deny physical care. Scott v. Scott, 354 S.C. 118, 579 S.E.2d 620, 623-24 (2003) (legislation authorizing consideration of divided custody, when court finds it in best interest of the child, does not overrule prior case law disfavoring arrangement).