Non-custodial parents networking together to make a difference!

 

 

Research Supporting Joint Physical Care

IowaFathers.com has gathered research on joint physical care.  We have discovered through research, that under normal circumstances, the awarding of joint physical care is in the best interest of children.

 

What is joint physical care?

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).

 

Research Supporting Joint Physical Care:

A study just released by UNICEF ranked the top 21 wealthiest countries in the world on their children’s well being.  The United States received the second worst ranking (20 out of 21), citing divorce and the number of children being raised in single-parent households as major risk factors. Click here for the UNICEF Report Card 7, released in 2007.

A recent survey, The Changing Shape of the American Family, found that “Nearly nine in ten (88%) of U.S. adults say divorce has a negative impact on maintaining a stable American family life.”

One of the most important steps for reducing conflict in a divorce is for state legislatures to enact clearer guidelines for determining custody (Custody Disputed by Emery, Robert E.; Otto, Randy K.; O'donohue, William. Scientific American Mind; 2005, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p64-67, 4p, 1bw).

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).

Nationwide, the number of children living without their father has exceeded 25 million. In Iowa, Polk County is contributing 21,000 children to this national statistic. The rates of fatherless children are increasing due to divorce and children born out of wedlock. Children whose fathers are actively involved have better social and economic outcomes (Source: Polk County Fatherhood Initiative, January 2006).

All thirty-three comparative studies in the U.S. comparing the outcomes of children in joint physical care to those in the care of only one parent found that children in joint physical care have better outcomes. (“Child Custody in Joint-Custody Versus Sole Custody Arrangements…” by Dr. Robert Bauserman, published in Journal of Family Psychology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1).

International comparative research demonstrates that by all twenty-six accepted measures of child well-being, children in joint physical care have better outcomes than children in the care of only one parent (Father and Child Reunion, Dr. Warren Farrell, Tarcher/Putman, 2001).

The language associated with divorce suggests: a broken home implies that something needs to be fixed; visitation implies that one parent is a “visitor”; custody implies “ownership.” Parents need to devise parenting plans and share parenting responsibilities. (“The Divorce is Over- What About the Kids?” by Mitchell K. Karpf and Irene M. Shatz PhD, published in American Journal of Family Law, Spring 2005, Vol. 19 Issue 1).

Around 1400 families split up in Polk County last year. Statistically, 427 sets of parents reside in the same zip code, the average number of children per separation is 1.5, and the average age of the children was 5 years old (Source: Polk County Fatherhood Initiative, January 2006).

Seventy-two percent (72%) of U.S. citizens believe the most significant social problem facing our country today is the physical absence of the father from the home, resulting in a lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of children.  Unfortunately, in many cases the former spouse’s actions, lack of father support, the artificial nature of “visitation”, and the unequal parenting power lead to a reduction in father involvement (Gallop Poll - The National Center for Fathering (1999), Today's Father, v 7).

The U.S. Supreme Court regards parental rights as fundamental. Such a status should subject any legal procedure that directly and substantively interferes with the exercise of parental rights to strict scrutiny. On the contrary, though, despite their status as fundamental constitutional rights, parental rights are routinely suspended or revoked as a result of procedures that fail to meet even minimal standards of procedural and substantive due process. This routine and cavalier deprivation of parental rights takes place in the context of divorce where, during the pendency of litigation, one parent is routinely deprived of significant parental rights without any demonstration that a state interest exists—much less that there is a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved in any less restrictive way. In marked contrast to our current practice, treating parental rights as fundamental rights requires a presumption of joint legal and physical custody upon divorce and during the pendency of divorce litigation.  The presumption may be overcome, but only by clear and convincing evidence that such an arrangement is harmful to the children (Hubin, Donald C., "Parental Rights and Due Process,"   Journal of Law and Family Studies, vol. 1, no. 2.  University of Utah, 1999.  pp. 123-150).

Women received physical placement in 84.4% of the cases and men 15.6% (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

The most prevalent custody arrangement was the mother having both legal and physical custody (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

The second most common custody arrangement was joint legal custody between both parents with the mother having sole physical custody (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

Approximately $24 billion was paid exclusively for child support (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

76% of child support payments were court ordered (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

Male providers were more likely to make the child support payment (80%) than female providers (55%) (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, released February 2005).

Research by Drs. Judith Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly revealed that 50% of mothers either saw no value in the father's contact with his children and actively tried to sabotage it, or resented the father's contact (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
Almost 40% of the custodial wives reported that they had refused at least once to let their ex-husbands see the children, and admitted that their reasons had nothing to do with the children's wishes or the children's safety, but were somehow punitive in nature (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
Fulton reported that 53% of non-custodial fathers claimed their ex-wives had refused to let them see their children (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
It is NEVER in the child's best interest to withhold visitation or to make it unnecessarily difficult for the other parent to spend time with the child, just for the purpose of punishing or getting even with the other parent.  Even if you are not receiving child support, the child needs to spend time with the other parent (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
Some of the methods used to discourage contact are forgotten appointments, insistence on rigid schedules for visits, refusal to permit the visit of the father brought an adult friend, a thousand mischievous, mostly petty devices designed to humiliate the visiting parent and to deprecate him in the eyes of his children (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
Consider this statistic when you are tempted to use the child to punish the other parent (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).
 
The decision to keep the child with the mother is theoretically made in the best interest of the child; however, when children were surveyed later in life, fewer than half felt their mother's motives had anything to do with their best interests, only a quarter felt it was because their mother loved them (Source: Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center, 2006).

Click here for research regarding the relocation of children after a divorce.

Click here for more information from the Separated Parenting Access and Resource Center.

 

 

Letters of Support for Joint Physical Care:

Click here for a letter from Governor Vilsack in May of 2004.  Please notice that Governor Vilsack in this letter states that HF22 created a presumption of joint physical care!

Click here for a letter of support from the Family & Children's Council, a child abuse prevention agency that recognizes the importance of both parents having equal access to their children.

 

 

Recent Iowa Court of Appeals rulings on Joint Physical Care:

Note: Four consecutive appeals in 2005 were overturned where an Iowa District Court refused to grant joint physical care during the dissolution proceeding (first four mentioned).  The rest are cases where joint physical care was the final outcome.

 

Rush vs. Wilmington, March 15, 2006:

Lisa Wilmington appeals the district court’s joint physical care and child support orders in Terino Rush’s action to establish custody and child support.  In this case, the Court of Appeals agreed that joint physical care was in the child's best interest despite the parties never being married.

 

In Re Marriage of Hynick, September 7, 2006

The court modified a district court ruling to award joint physical care.  Also, the court recognized the unwillingness of the mother at times to promote the relationship between the child and family.

 

In Re Marriage of Hoffman, June 15, 2005:

The court reversed a district court ruling to award physical care to the father because the mother obstructed joint physical care.

 

In Re Marriage of Kueter, July 13, 2005:

The court reversed a district court ruling to award joint physical care to the father even though communication between the parents was less than ideal.

 

In Re Marriage of Munger, August 17, 2005:

The court reversed a district court ruling to award joint physical care to the father even though the mother had been the primary caretaker during the marriage. The court also noted that the father provided the district court with a detailed plan for implementation of joint physical care.

 

In Re Marriage of Ellis, September 14, 2005:

The court modified a district court ruling to award joint physical care to the father even though the parties could not agree on the details of a joint physical care agreement.

 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STEVENS  November 16, 2006.

In this ruling, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, to award joint physical care despite poor communication.  In this ruling, the Court of Appeals also states, "We believe the court’s statement of reasons rejecting joint physical care appears to reflect a generalized disfavor of the very nature of such arrangements."

 

Federal Case Law - Parenting is a fundamental right:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923):

Parent's rights have been recognized as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.

 

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925):

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

 

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965):

A man has the right to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of  his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages.

 

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972):

The parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.

 

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232-233 (1972):

The Court took up a challenge to Wisconsin's compulsory education laws and found that even when claiming a purpose of benefiting the child, the state must demonstrate convincing evidence that its intended policy will actually bring about its professed goal.

 

Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255 Q56 (1978):

A father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child.

 

Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745 (1982):

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.

[W]hile there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the [state's] parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds.  The State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents (quote at 766,767).

 

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 99-138 (2000):

The liberty interest at issue…the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court…  [I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

Website last updated: September 29, 2008.