REALLY Mad, but even more scared

[tjraid18]

  Hey Gregg, I'm glad to see your getting some good solid advice from other people here. As far as the raiders-- I know this is probably for another web-site but I can probably tie it in to this one. I was born in Oakland but find the older I get the less I know about the stats and goings on with my team. I did hear something about Warren Sapp signing. Is that true? I have been a LOYAL raider fan all my life and cant  help but wonder what would happen if parents were a little more loyal to each other (at least when it comes to the children). It's an epidemic and your not alone. I just hope things get better quicker for the childrens sake. My opinion is taking a child from a parent is like taking an arm or leg from that child. Or worse, like taking half of their heart.(except in cases of abuse). Keep eveybody posted and good luck!!!

[bluesman]

Gregg,

This will get you to a tremendous amount of information about IA statutes and case law. There will likely be key cases in Iowa that you need to understand. This is the place to find them.

http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ia/laws.html

Also, you need to make sure your attorney knows the facts of these important cases. Some attorneys just know what the cases are about and the principals they establish. But its important that an attorney (and you, for that matter) know that facts so that you can either apply a case that favors you, or differentiates your case from one that hurts you. You must read them to do that.

Jim

[bluesman]

Gregg,

I just received this. This is what I was referring to when I said things are happening in IA right now. Its a posting from a Yahoo forum.

[ DADS in FAMILY COURT Moderator notes...

IOWA HF 22, (AWARDING OF JOINT PHYSICAL CARE OF A CHILD)
which creates a PRESUMPTION of shared joint physical care
has been passed by both houses and awaits the determination
of Governor Vilsack.

It reads in part:

"Section 598.41, subsection 5, Code 2003, is amended to read
as follows:    5.  a.  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."

For complete text, and legislative history, see
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/80GA/Legislation/HF/00000/HF00022/Current.html
and also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dadsinfamilycourt/message/3526


WHO STANDS in OPPOSITION to this sensible legislative bill?
Predictably, the STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.

Why?   As Larry Yates recently wrote, it's quite obvious:
"Win, lose or draw, it doesn't matter, each of those attorneys
are going to get paid and the longer the battle, the more motions
that are filed and the more appeals that are made, means that they
get paid just that much more."

But let's see what absurdity the Bar has to offer the Governor... _______]

----------------------------


Kevin H. Collins, President
THE IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
115 Third Street, S.E., Suite 500
PO Box 2107
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107
(319) 365-9461   FAX (319) 365-8564
e-mail:  [email protected]

April 26, 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

khc (at) shuttleworthlaw.com
KHC:mwk

_____________________________

[ Did he really mean to say...
"This legislation is not beneficial to Iowan attorneys..."
for assuredly he does NOT speak on behalf of the children in Iowa. ]