The State of Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee has just passed SF507 out of committee and to the floor for a vote.  This bill requires judges in the state to consider presumptive joint custody of 50/50 for any parenting plan modification requests.

This is an important bill for the State, which passed the nations first 50/50 joint custody bill in 2004.  It's been reported that some judges don't follow the 50/50 requirments for parents looking for a change of custody.  This bill would require judges order 50/50 joint custody unless it finds specifically that it is not in the best interest of the child. 

To find this, a judge must specify the conditions that are not in the best interest of the child.  In Iowa, current laws specifies that joint custody is in the best interest of the child to begin with.

Read the blog at http://blog.ussharedparenting.com/?p=6

The complete text is below:

1  1    Section 1.  Section 598.41, subsection 5, paragraph a, Code
  1  2 2007, 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, the burden of proof to rebut the presumption rests on
  1 11 the party denying that joint physical care is in the best
  1 12 interest of the child, and such party shall demonstrate that
  1 13 joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child
  1 14 by clear and convincing evidence.  Prior to ruling on the
  1 15 request for the award of joint physical care, the court may
  1 16 require the parents to submit, either individually or jointly,
  1 17 a proposed joint physical care parenting plan.  A proposed
  1 18 joint physical care parenting plan shall address how the
  1 19 parents will make decisions affecting the child, how the
  1 20 parents will provide a home for the child, how the child's
  1 21 time will be divided between the parents and how each parent
  1 22 will facilitate the child's time with the other parent,
  1 23 arrangements in addition to court=ordered child support for
  1 24 the child's expenses, how the parents will resolve major
  1 25 changes or disagreements affecting the child including changes
  1 26 that arise due to the child's age and developmental needs, and
  1 27 any other issues the court may require.  If the court finds by
  1 28 clear and convincing evidence that joint physical care is not
  1 29 in the best interest of the child and denies the request for
  1 30 joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by
  1 31 specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the
  1 32 awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of
  1 33 the child.  In determining the best interest of the child
  1 34 relative to the denial of a request for joint physical care,
  1 35 the court shall consider that the best interest of the child
  2  1 includes the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and
  2  2 emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct
  2  3 physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result
  2  4 from this contact.
  2  5                           EXPLANATION
  2  6    This bill provides that in awarding joint physical care to
  2  7 parents under the dissolution of marriage chapter, joint
  2  8 physical care may be awarded to both parents based upon a
  2  9 request by either parent either during the proceedings on the
  2 10 initial dissolution petition or during the proceedings on a
  2 11 modification of the original custody order.  The bill creates
  2 12 a rebuttable presumption that a request for joint physical
  2 13 care by either parent is in the best interest of the child,
  2 14 places the burden of proof to rebut the presumption on the
  2 15 party denying that joint physical care is in the best interest
  2 16 of the child, and requires such party to demonstrate that
  2 17 joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child
  2 18 by clear and convincing evidence.  The bill also requires that
  2 19 if the court denies joint physical care, the court must base
  2 20 the findings on clear and convincing evidence.  In determining
  2 21 the best interest of the child relative to the denial of a
  2 22 request for joint physical care, the court is required to
  2 23 consider that the best interest of the child includes the
  2 24 opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional
  2 25 contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or
  2 26 significant emotional harm to the child may result from this
  2 27 contact.
  2 28 LSB 2608SV 82
  2 29 pf:rj/cf/24