IOWA'S CHILDREN WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kitty C.]

We did it!  We have made a difference in thousands of kids' lives!!!!!!!  This afternoon Gov. Vilsack signed into law a NEW joint custody bill that requires ANY parent who asks for JC to be considered and, that if that is the case, the OTHER parent would have to PROVE otherwise for it NOT to be allowed!

It would have never happened without the help of all of you who took the time to write, e-mail, and call the governor.  From what I have heard from his office, he was DELUGED with comments and information!  He also did his homework and I am told he consulted with various child psych. professionals across the nation as well.  He also heard from the pres. of the Iowa Bar, who vehemently urged him to veto it.  So he knows that he will be making an enemy of the state's attys.  This is a VERY brave action he's taken.

Pat yourselves on the back, cuz you guys did a FANTASTIC job!  If I could kiss you all, I would, but I can't, so you'll have to settle for this:

 :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :* :*

LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hawkeye]

:D :D HOOORAY!! OH HAPPY DAY!!  :D :D

For once, I can't WAIT to get back to court! LOL

[joni]

.

[antonin]

I am glad for you. Do you happen to know what the standard of proof is? ("preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing?"
Again..great work.

[Stepmom0418]

As I already have said, finally someone has the best interest of all of our children in mind when making a decision! Being from Iowa I too need to thank everyone for their hard work, letters, phone calls, and emails to the governors office. Everyone take Kittys advice and pat yourself's on the back. I do want to say that this isnt over yet there are still alot of things that need to happen to make the courts fair to everyone BUT This is the first step to the Many changes to come!!  

[Hawkeye]

Here's what the bill states...

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.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&hbill=HF22

You might have to register to bring up this webpage of the entire bill.

[tjraid18]

  I am soooo glad to hear the news!!!! There are no words...
Congratulations to all who helped make it happen!!! Yesssss!!! A BIG
WOOOO------HOOOO to the children of Iowa and to the governor!!!
Maybe other states will follow example. That is so GREAT!!!

[MYSONSDAD]

Just goes to show what people can do when they work together with a common goal. Many took time to help make this a reality. I find it so refreshing that the Governor spent time to research this on his own. It says volumes for his charactor. A true leader.

I am taking a few minutes to write and thank him for his attention with this. And showing the courage to take a giagantic first step. I can only imagine what pressures he faced from oppossing interest groups.

We should all use this example and follow thru, one State at a time. Put heads together and make some real changes. It is long overdue.

Congrats Iowa!!!!!!  Hope this is contagious.....

[Hawkeye]

I'm right with ya... Thomas J. Vilsack deserves a standing ovation!!!!  And thensome!!!  Iowa's children have lots more to look forward to now!!!  

This is just some awesome news and I, for one, am so happy to be on the very edge of this...  THANK YOU ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[lissa68]

Melissa(lissa68)

A Huge Win For Iowa's Children, and their fathers fighting for them..

Way to Go Vilisak we needed this.


Way to Iowans and all those out of state that supported it.

One big step in a small state in the USA,  lets keep it going everywhere else.

Yeah!!!!

Tony and Melissa

[antonin]

I am posting below the text of an inquiry I sent to Socrateaser regarding the language in the Iowa bill (and his response): If you recall, I made similiar observations about the language of the bill a few months ago when the bill first was mentioned on this board. Also, here is an article that examines the positive and negative sides of the bill:

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0504/newswire052004-iowa.htm

           >This language appears in a recent "presumption of joint
>physical custody" bill that
>was signed by the Govenor in Iowa today:
>
>"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."
>
>1. is the standard of proof required by the abovementioned
>phrase closer in meaning to
>
>"a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing
>evidence?"

Neither...a legal "presumption" merely places an initial burden on the party against whom the presumption works, to produce sufficient evidence to "overcome" that presumption. In this instance, if there is a presumption of joint physical custody, then a parent who opposes joint, must produce sufficient evidence to cause the trier of facts to believe that joint custody may not be in the child's best interests. Once the presumption is overcome, it then falls to the other parent to produce sufficient evidence (or defeat the evidence already presented) to show that joint custody is, once again, in the child's best interests.

A "preponderance of evidence" means that the evidence actually produced, must be sufficient to show that one party's position is more likely true than not. If the scale is tipped in a party's direction in the slightest amount, then that party wins the issue (or the case).

"Clear and convincing evidence" means that the evidence is "substantially" weighted in favor of one party. Tipping the scale slightly isn't enough -- the proof of an issue or case must be fairly obvious. This burden of proof is reserved for civil cases where there is a great deal at stake, e.g., complete termination of parental rights, and suits for intentional misrepresentation (fraud), where the court may award punitive damages against a defendant.

And, just to be complete, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is a burden of proof required when a person's physical life or liberty is in the balance (criminal prosecutions).

Anyway, the IA legislation to which you refer is one of those "feel good" kinds of laws that the government can trumpet as a step towards more equity in family law. In practice, such text is meaningless, because the court can award one parent 99% custody and the other parent 1%, and it will still be referred to as "joint physical."

When you see a state pass legislation that says, "No parent shall be denied equal physical responsibility for their minor child by the court, except upon a showing, that said parent would be denied physical responsibility even in the absence of the other parent," THAT'S when you'll know that things have finally changed.

Until then, it's all politics as usual.
 

[Wishing]

This is truly a wonderful thing to rejoice. I can only hope that this type of legislation will spread across this country so that each parent will be able to enjoy and participate in the raising of their children.

If this does spread throughout the country, maybe our children won't have to face what so many Fathers have had to endure for too long.