Letter from Iowa Bar Assoc. to Gov. Vilsack

[Kitty C.]

             April 27, 2004

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319

RE:  HF 22 Joint Physical Care

Dear Governor Vilsack:

On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 – Joint Physical Care.  At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination.  The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation.    The committee's view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.  

The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of  "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child's needs?"  By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar.  Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child's primary residence.  Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce.  Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard.  Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child's needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.  

Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents.  There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed.   The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.  

HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care.   This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.

The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.  

You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.

This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.

Very truly yours,



KEVIN H. COLLINS

[email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Proof positive that attys. have NO clue what 'the best interest of the child' truly is..........

[lissa68]

Melissa(lissa68)

As an Iowan, that jack### does not speak for me or my husband.  What do you want to bet that if the tables were turned and he was divorced and kept from his child by his ex, he would not be so hasty to ask  the govenor for a veto.  

What an a##, only parents know what's best for our kids.


Lissa68

[Hawkeye]

"By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar."

"a calendar"???  I wonder how they figure that... "a calendar"??? Why not a "clock" ? haha, What a CROCK!

After all, a child has more in common with a clock (two hands) than a "calendar."

Just plain, MickeyMouse petty hair splitting, in my opinion... Maybe the concept of sharing and equality is simply beyond the scope of the Iowa Bar.

Please write Governor Vilsack and ask him to side with children, not lawyers/bar associations, and sign HF22.

[lissa68]

Melissa(lissa68)

I just did.

Copy of letter sent:

Dear Govenor Vilasak,

     I am in receipt of this letter to you asking you to veto HF22.  I am writing today to ask you to NOT veto this bill.  We as parents believe this bill is the most benefiial thing Iowa has ever done to protect the rights of children and divorcing parents.  To often in Iowa, primary care by one parent is taken advantage of and the child or children are kept from the other parent.  This bill from the begininng gives BOTH parents the right to be what they were before the divorce, only in different households.  OUR children deserve this after, It is in the BEST interests of the Child to have a meaningful and complete relationship WITH BOTH parents.

This man DOES NOT SPEAK on my or my husbands behalf.  He obviously has not been divorced and kept from his child or children.  You need to hear from those of us whom have been legally stopped from seeing our kids by vengful ex's and hateful parents whom will with the courts blessing keep children away from the other parent.

Its time to see what the NCP's feel on this measure.  Most of us would be grateful and our childrens lives fuller and richer for the passing of this bill.

Our children deserve this, and after all, In the childs best interests, it should be passed.  Its high time the voices of the parents whom are denied access and the children missing them are heard.  This bill will allow them to be heard after being stiffled for all these years.  BOTH PARENTS in volved make happier better children, it is our future you know.

Sincerely,

Tony and Melissa Johnson




________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

















The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Governor of Iowa
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319

RE: HF 22 Joint Physical Care

Dear Governor Vilsack:

On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 – Joint Physical Care. At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination. The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation. The committee's view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.

The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child's needs?" By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar. Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child's primary residence. Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce. Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard. Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child's needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.

Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents. There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed. The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.

HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care. This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.

The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.

You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.

This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.

Very truly yours,



KEVIN H. COLLINS

[email protected]

[Hawkeye]

Thanks, Melissa and Tony !

[OzrkChic]

If this letter really is the opinion of the majority of Iowans, and not just an idiot who wants to make trouble, it just proves that the "Best interest of the child/ren" is NOT a priority of Iowans, the justice system in particular.

To even think of this bill in the way this person describes is just ridiculous. But then I'm really cynical and jaded when it comes to anything to do with the justice system in Iowa. DH has been screwed over too many times by them and as a result now has absolutely no contact with his children. We have fought the system in Iowa for the last four years and each time got our heads handed to us and BM got over again.

If the governor does veto this bill, he will be showing his true colors and proving that he has no interest in what is "The BEST interest of the children".

Ok I'm stepping down from my soapbox.

Mika