Meeting Public Comments

Matthew Hickok [Families United Action Network (FUAN)]

Hello,I am writing to you today to urge you to pass HF202 in favor of a rebuttable presumption of Shared Parenting as the starting point in all custody cases. For too long, Iowa's children have carried the burden of having one parent minimized or removed in the overwhelming majority of custody cases. Shared Parenting removes the onesizefitsall presumption that one parent will have primary care, while the other has every other weekend and Wednesday evening. This arrangement is shoehorned into nearly every contested case, regardless of life circumstances, job schedules, and other factors. HF 202 will place the parents on an equal playing field and allow a judge to tailor a shared schedule to fit the needs of the family.This bill will also reduce the tremendous amount of conflict that is created by the current adversarial system. Right now, one parent knows they are likely to receive primary care and thus has no reason to come to the table and negotiate. The other parent knows that every other weekend and Wednesday is the most likely outcome and is likely to accept far less to stay out of court. This accounts for most of the "settlements" outside of court that are touted as a reason to oppose this legislation. When both parents know that 50/50 is the starting point, the negotiations will shift from "trying to get a leg up on the other parent" to both parents no longer feeling that their place in their child's life is threatened, which will bring about far more cooperation and far less animosity. This has already been demonstrated in Kentucky.All existing protections in the current law remain in place, so those parents who pose a danger to their children can still be restricted or removed as necessary. Thank you for taking the time to read and for moving HF202 forward to the full judiciary committee.

Martin Connell

This is my 21st year trying to get children equal access to both fit, loving parents. For 20 years I have heard wait till next year. Children are not weapons for the monetary gain of the corrupt. Take a good look at those who oppose HF 202 every year for their monetary gain. Also take a good look at the funds given to legislators for a no vote on HF 202. You will not be surprised where those funds are coming from every year. Children need both both parents actively involved in their lives. Have you ever looked into the eyes of a child that can not see one parent or the other? I have.

Pam Thompson

A child deserves to be involved in each parents life equally. This is in the childs best interest. Not custody being given to one parent, and they act as if they and they alone are involved with the child. Or to have a grandparent care for the child simply due to spite of the other parent. This is about THE CHILD. Not a 'I won" award. Do whats in the best interest of the child, which is 50/50 . Thank you for listening.

Molly K Olson [Center for Parental Responsibility and Leading Women for Shared Parenting ]

HF202 is a good bill for Iowa families and children. It will help build stronger families and larger support systems for children. Just because fit parents divorce or separate does not mean they ever intend to have minimal contact with their kids. The current laws and court practices are based on the very outdated and false assumption that dads don't care about their kids, can't parent effectively, or simply aren't as available or good as mothers to parent. The current law is based on myth that children can only do well with one home. This is the complete opposite of what research says. Children have no problem going back and forth if it means they get to have equal or near equal access to both parents. The trade off is worth it to kids. Any assumption otherwise has no basis in fact or social science research. Equal shared parenting as a starting place in law is best for children according to all credible social science research in the last 40 years. I can provide research if you need it. The law has lagged society for way too long. Courts have resisted change. Courts say they just follow the law. If the courts can't (and they don't) protect a child's right and equal need to both fit parents, then the law must be more clear. This bill will provide that clarity. There is no justification in law or in social science or in societal culture for one parent to have 26 days a month and the other 4 days a month (i.e. every other weekend). The lopsided parenting time and custody in current law or court practice incites conflict. Laws should work to minimize conflict, which presumptions of equality will do. Laws should work to promote the best outcomes for kids, which a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting will do. There is no rational reason why fit loving responsible parents should be roadblocked from equal parenting when they have done nothing legally wrong and when they are ready willing and able to stepuptothe plate to share equally in the responsibility of raising their children. Unwarranted court forced fatherlessness has created a crisis in our society that creates bad outcomes for kids current laws have allowed dads to be minimized, marginalized, and set aside as unnecessary for way too long. This must stop. It is in the best interest of children to support policies that welcome the involvement of both parents instead of restricting their access to one fit parent without just cause and force a parent to pay lawyers huge amounts of money ($50,00$250,000 not unheard of) to be a parent when they have done nothing legally wrong. Family court should not be a place where "you get the justice you can afford." A lack of equality and need to "fight" for equal access is an undue hardship on working class families who can't afford to fight for their kids. This harms kids. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that it must be assumed that parents will act in the best interest of their children. And most will. The state law should see both parents as equal unless there is clear and convincing evidence that there is harm to the children. This bill does that. Family court need not be a battle over who is the better or worse parent when there are two fit parents. Nor should the court see their role to pick one winner parent and one loser parent. No parent is perfect. But these are the only parents these kids have. Kids to better with both parents equally in their lives.

Stacey Schnuckel

I am writing in support of the passage of HF202. I have a unique perspective as I am a paralegal working daily with men and women who are struggling with custody. While there are times when 50/50 shared care is accomplished, most of that happens on a voluntary basis after significant negotiation. The award of "primary care and child support" (the prize at the end) is always the breaking point in cases I've worked on and witnessed. It takes hours on the part of the attorney and the client, to be able to put together a "defense" in support of the parent requesting 50/50. This includes interviews, depositions, filtering through hundreds of photos and documents, failed mediations, trial preparation and trial. There are lost wages and lost vacation time for parents to work with attorneys that should be spent with their children. Most parents with children do not have an unending source of money and are borrowing money from family and friends. Just because one parent asks for 50/50 there is still hard work to be done to prove it will work. That hard work can quickly be destroyed by the opposite parent claiming anything from a lack of communication to a lack of cooking skills and skewing the information they have to their favor. And always the personal attacks toward the parent asking for 50/50 increase and become a breeding ground for more attacks. And it always seems to bubble over to the children with one parent discussing the divorce at home. I have also assisted my employer during mediations and have witnessed mediators downplay what "primary care" really means. They will go so far as claim their experience with the assigned judge is that 50/50 won't be awarded if either parent resists; essentially killing the request before a judge hears it. In those situations, the parent wanting 50/50 has always backed down, afraid of court and afraid to continue to fight for 50/50 shared care. Passing HF202 will take the "prize" off the table and will make a huge difference for the children, parents, and extended families. Studies show that children who have equal access to both parents are better academically, have less incarceration, lower suicide rates, lower teen pregnancy, and have a better wellbeing and psychological health. The only way to ensure a child's right of equal access is refine custody law language and confirm HF202. Thank you for your time and I hope you will continue to work to move HF202 forward and make it a reality.