Welcome to IowaFathers.com. This website and
organization has been created to help single, divorcing, and divorced
parents residing in the state of Iowa deal with child custody, child
support, visitation rights, and other domestic related issues. Although our emphasis is
working specifically with non-custodial parents, concerned
grandparents and siblings, every Iowan is welcome and encouraged to join.
Special Announcements:
On September 16, 2008, IowaFathers.com met with select members of the
United States House of Representatives and select members of the
United States Senate to
discuss support of a federal law establishing a
rebuttable presumption of joint physical care or shared parenting.
Please click on the picture to the left for more information.
During the 2009 state legislative session,
IowaFathers.com intends to have state legislators reintroduce
shared parenting legislation
(similar to Senate File 507) aimed at creating a rebuttable
presumption of joint physical care.
Former Chief Justice of Minnesota Supreme Court supports a Rebuttable Presumption
of Shared Parenting. Watch a two minute edited segment of
the interview below:
Parental Alienation Syndrome - ABC Interview with Alec Baldwin:
“The lawyers are there to make
money. It’s an industry. It’s
a racket. The judges are like
pit bosses in Vegas Casinos.
There job is to make sure
everybody stays at the table and
keeps gambling” – Alec
Baldwin during ABC Interview
with Diane Sawyer
on
9/20/2008.
Watch Video About Us:
Quick Facts:
80%
of children with divorcing or divorced parents experience some form of
Parental Alienation. 20% of these children experience such behaviors at
least once a day (Source: American Bar Association).
In 2002, women received physical placement in 84.4% of
the cases and men 15.6% (Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, released February
2005).
About 85% of custodial parents are mothers
(Source: Journal of Family Psychology. 2003, Vol. 17, No. 2, 206–219).
Three out of four teenage
suicides (75%) occur in households where a parent has been
absent (Source: Elshtain, Jean Bethke,
"Family Matters: The Plight of America’s Children."The
Christian Century, July 1993.)
The 5 most recently created Message
Board topics:
Title
Author
Date
Our Goal:
Network with non-custodial parents and Iowa citizens around the state and bring about change to our
current legal system. IowaFathers.com wants Iowa legislators and
judges to listen to the
research and to start putting the children first by allowing equal access
to both parents through Joint Physical Care. The Iowa judicial system
needs to uphold the law equally and be held accountable when it doesn't!
Why
Join IowaFathers.com?
Iowa's traditional family
unit is under attack by trial lawyers, social programs, and state
agencies because of monetary gain or self preservation.
Divorce in Iowa is
out of control with the latest data showing 9,766 decreed cases
under Iowa Statute 598 per year
(click to see divorce data).
Legislative changes must be made to protect the family
unit and ensure that children have an opportunity to be raised by
parents, not a parent. This may require changing Iowa's no-fault divorce
law or creating a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care (shared
parenting) during a dissolution of marriage.
Post-divorce family
litigation is at an all-time high in Iowa. Lawyers, state agencies, and
the Iowa Judicial Branch promote conflict because of the revenue that is
generated. The Iowa Child Support Recovery Unit
had 191,446 cases
and collected $327.4 million dollars in 2007. This is crucial
because the State of Iowa receives federal incentive money based upon
the total amount of collections
through
U.S.C. Title 42 - Chapter 7 "Social Security" -
Subchapter IV - Part D
(click see child support collection data).
Legislative changes must be made to de-escalate family litigation,
possibly though programs like mandated binding mediation or legislation
clarifying the intent of the law regarding what constitutes "contempt"
for non-compliance of Court Order's, otherwise the future of Iowa
families looks grim.
False domestic abuse
allegations go unpunished are destroying families by automatically
removing fathers from their children without one shred of physical
evidence. This despite the Office of Violence
Against Women acknowledging that at least 40% of Domestic Violence is
perpetrated by women. Legislative changes are needed so that due process
is afforded to all citizens accused, including a presumption of
innocence until proven guilty, and there must be consequences for false
allegations.
Our military personnel are
coming home and finding out that the "Soldiers and Sailors Act" did not
protect them from litigation or from losing custody of their children
while serving our nation. Legislative changes are needed to ensure that
our military personnel are protected from any form of litigation while
serving our nation.
Ultimately, we believe it is
the responsibility of all Iowan's to protect our prestigious family unit
and our children's future!
What is a Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Physical
Care?
A rebuttable presumption of joint physical care requires
judges to consider Joint Physical Care as the "First Alternative" in a
child custody hearing. Joint physical care is when both parents share physical
placement of the child(ren). Simply defined, joint physical care allows the
child(ren) to live with each parent 50% of the time during the year. Research
has shown that child(ren) need equal access to both parents and joint physical
care accomplishes this challenge. Parenting schedules are established to
determine when each parent has the child(ren) living with them. The most
frequent joint physical care schedule is one week at moms, the next week at
dads, and holidays are usually alternated. The State of Iowa, allows parents to
determine what parenting schedule best meets the needs of their child(ren).
Joint physical care is established in Iowa Statute 598.41(5)(a).
Parenting is a fundamental right protected by
the 5th and 14th amendments. This has been established in Troxel
v. Granville, 530 U.S. 99-138 (2000), Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S
Ct 1388; 455 U.S. 745 (1982) and Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct
549; 434 U.S. 246, 255 Q56 (1978), among other cases.
Click here for a recent letter
from Senator Charles Grassley acknowledging parenting as a
fundamental right.
Treating parental rights as fundamental
rights requires a presumption of joint legal and joint physical
care upon divorce and through litigation. While Iowa Statute
598.41(5)(a) allows for joint physical care upon the request by
either parent, the Supreme Court of Iowa has ruled no
presumption exists — this despite legislators making clear the
intent of the law, which may be viewed by
clicking here. As a result,
most judges refuse to award joint physical care despite the
qualifications or parenting ability of either parent.
Opposition to Joint Physical Care:
Why would any legislator oppose a bill allowing children equal
access to both parents?
The answer is simple when you understand that divorce breeds a
host of societal ills for government to solve. Virtually every
major social pathology, from violent crime to drug abuse to
truancy, is directly attributable to family breakdown and
fatherless homes more than any single factor, even surpassing
race and poverty. This fills state and local government coffers
with federal money for all kinds of social programs to help
solve these divorce-related social problems.
The favorite answer many state legislators use
for not supporting a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care
legislation is the domestic & child abuse myths.
Domestic Abuse, Child
Abuse, & Neglect Facts:
The
Office of Violence Against Women acknowledging that at least 40% of Domestic
Violence is perpetrated by women.
Who are the
perpetrators of child abuse? Approximately 40 percent of child
victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3
percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were
abused by both parents (United
States Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).
Children who had been
physically abused by parent-substitutes were much more likely to have
been abused by their father-substitute 90% versus 19% by their
mother-substitute (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child
Abuse and Neglect; NIS-3).
Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators 87% versus
43% by males (Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse
and Neglect; NIS-3).
Compared with their counterparts
living with both parents, children in single-parent families had:
·A
77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse (using the
stringent Harm Standard) and a 63-percent greater risk of experiencing
any countable physical abuse (using the Endangerment Standard).
·An
87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect and a
165-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable physical neglect.
·A
74-percent greater risk of being harmed by emotional neglect and a
64-percent greater risk of experiencing any countable emotional neglect.
·A
220-percent (or more than three times) greater risk of being
educationally neglected.
·An
approximately 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or
harm from abuse or neglect.
·An
approximately 90-percent greater risk of receiving moderate injury or
harm as a result of child maltreatment.
·A
120-percent (or more than two times) greater risk of being endangered by
some type of child abuse or neglect.
(Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect;
NIS-3).
FACTS about Joint Physical Care:
Such an arrangement removes the child as a
weapon in child custody proceedings.
Provides children equal access to both parents after a
divorce unless such a ruling would put the children in direct physical
or emotional harm.
Children with equal access to both parents have
better outcomes in life.
Children arelesslikely to suffer
from physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
Helps prevent Parental Alienation Syndrome
(PAS).
Cost of litigations are much lower and less
frequent.
Parenting is the most fundamental right
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Puts the State of Iowa in compliance with the
5th and 14th Amendment.
Judges must look at the specific facts of each
case.
MYTHS about Joint Physical Care:
Judges must grant joint physical care.
Children will be placed in homes where domestic
abuse has been proven.
Children will be placed in homes where sexual
abuse has been proven.
Such an arrangement is an unstable environment
for the children.
Legislative changes to create a presumption of Joint Physical Care
(JPC) also known as Shared Parenting.
The
granting of joint physical care in contested child custody disputes
unless such an arrangement places the children directly in harms way.
Legislation to allow both parents to be more involved in their children’s lives.
Children having maximum continuing physical and emotional
contact with both parents.
Children having equal access to both parents.
Legislation making a denial by either parent to support the
children having
continuing physical and emotional contact with the other parent a
Felony.
Grandparent legislation affording access to their grandchildren.
Judges holding both parents accountable for their actions.
Change the "No-Fault" divorce law when children are involved
unless a presumption of joint physical care is established.
Changes to the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS).
Child Support Recovery (CSRU) needs changes to be fair and uniform regarding
collections.
Prevent the Iowa judicial branch from using divorce and child custody issues
as a main source of revenue to fund state and local government
coffers.
Tougher and more frequent penalties on attorney's who violate the code
of ethics.
Tougher and more frequent penalties on judges who disregard Iowa Law.
Schools providing both parents information without
hassle.
Medical professionals providing both parents information without
hassle.
Legislative changes creating consequences for false domestic
abuse and false child abuse
accusations.
Stricter legislation on founded child abuse cases.
Legislation allowing for an immediate, neutral appeal (not
through DHS) of child
abuse cases.
Change the current judicial system practice of awarding the
custodial parent superior rights over the non-custodial parent,
which is unconstitutional.
The "Soldiers and Sailors Act" must apply to military personnel
in child custody matters while serving our nation.
Note: Supreme Court of Iowa in a recent ruling
declared that the "Soldiers and Sailors Act" is trumped by the "best
interest of the child" standard, which is non-measurable and
different from judge to judge.
Did You Know:
The United States has 5 percent of the world's
population and 70 percent of the lawyers.
The United States is the only country in the world where the court
lets the prisoner go home and locks up the jury.
The term "red tape" comes from nineteenth-century England when documents
were bound in reddish ribbon. Common folks cited the process of tying
and untying the tape as an excuse for the slowness of government decisions.
“Children
with two parents who actively and positively engage in their life by
providing financial support, love, guidance and discipline, have a
greater chance for success than children who receive an active
involvement from only one parent” –
former Iowa Governor, Thomas
J. Vilsack.
"Part of ending
sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent
‘visitation’ to his or her own child" -- Karen DeCrow, past president
of the National Organization for Women(NOW).
"Courts are supposed to approach cases of child custody, support
payments, and visitation rights in what we call a gender-neutral
posture. It sounds fair, and it is fair. But it is a myth. Judges are
not enforcing these gender laws fairly, and few seem to care" - Judge
Judy Sheindlin.
"Unless you have
been forcefully removed from the everyday upbringing of your child by
the Court, you can not fathom the emotional distress" - Bryan Iehl,
founder & president of IowaFathers.com.
The following photos were taken at a
meeting at the Capitol on June 2, 2008, to discuss the importance of
Governor Culver supporting a rebuttable presumption of joint physical
care.
