A bill for an act relating to temporary orders of child custody in dissolution proceedings.(Formerly SF 294.)
Summary
Senate File 514 would change Iowa law governing temporary child custody orders in dissolution proceedings. Under current law, courts must include a minimum visitation schedule for the noncustodial parent unless that would not be in the child’s best interest. This bill adds a stronger default rule: during the pendency of the custody case, the court must order temporary joint physical care of the child to both parties unless there is a rebuttable presumption against awarding physical care to one parent.
If the court concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that joint physical care is inappropriate, the bill requires the court to state the reasons for that decision and tie them to the statutory factors used in permanent custody determinations. In effect, the bill would push temporary custody arrangements closer to shared parenting unless a legal or factual reason exists to depart from that approach.
Impact
The bill would amend Iowa Code section 598.10, which governs temporary orders in dissolution cases, by creating a presumption in favor of temporary joint physical care and requiring written findings when that presumption is overcome. This would affect family law judges, divorcing parents, and children involved in custody disputes by making shared temporary custody the default in many cases and by increasing the explanation required when courts order a different arrangement.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but also some opposition. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 14-6 and later passed the Senate 35-12, while the House Judiciary Committee reported it unanimously 20-0. That pattern indicates broad committee-level support, especially in the House, but some division in the full Senate over the policy choice to favor temporary joint physical care.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s shift from a best-interest-based temporary custody framework to a stronger presumption in favor of joint physical care. Supporters likely view the bill as promoting shared parenting and consistency during custody litigation, while opponents may worry that a default shared-care rule could be inappropriate in cases involving conflict, safety concerns, or unequal caregiving circumstances. The bill addresses that concern by allowing courts to depart from joint physical care when a rebuttable presumption exists against awarding physical care to one parent or when the court finds joint physical care inappropriate, but the extent of that discretion appears to be the central issue.
Court consideration of allegations against a parent of domestic abuse or child abuse in dissolution, child custody, and parenting time proceedings requirement