Iowa Code § 598.41

Section 598.41(3) permits joint custody despite parental disagreements when the parents can communicate about the child’s needs and support each other’s relationship with the child.

In Re Marriage of Fish · filed 1984-04-24(3)

The statute, however, does not require that the parties be in accord all the time, but that they be able to communicate with each other regarding the child's needs and support each other's relationship with the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c) and (e).

Section 598.41(2) does not allow a court to deny joint custody based solely on the parents’ lack of communication; denial requires clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Ullerich · filed 1985-02-26(2)

At any rate, we are unpersuaded that lack of communication between the parents, standing alone, constitutes clear and convincing evidence that joint custody should not be granted.

Section 598.41(3) treats ability to communicate as one factor in deciding joint custody; no single factor or fixed number of factors is required or dispositive.

In Re the Marriage of Short · filed 1985-06-25(3)

No single one of the eight factors listed in section 598.41(3) is a condition precedent to allowing joint custody, nor is there a certain number of factors which, when satisfied, will either mandate or prohibit a joint custody award.

Section 598.41(2) permits denial of joint custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that parental hostility and inability to communicate make joint custody unreasonable and contrary to the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Miller · filed 1986-07-23(2)

We conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable in this case, and not in the best interests of the children as provided in section 598.41(2) — (3). We believe that the hostility between the parents and their inability to communicate effectively prevent their equal participation in decisions affecting upbringing of the children.

Section 598.41 permits withholding joint legal custody from parents when clear and convincing evidence shows that joint custody would be unreasonable and contrary to the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Hunnell · filed 1987-01-14

We disagree with the trial court’s grant of joint legal custody to the parents because clear and convincing evidence establishes that parental joint custody would be unreasonable and not in the best interest of these children. See Iowa Code § 598.41 (1985).

When one joint custodian has physical care, that parent must share school information and, except in emergencies, communicate with the other parent about decisions and provide the information needed to make them.

In Re the Marriage of Fortelka · filed 1988-04-20(5)

The parent having physical care will be the one receiving information on school events, getting conference slips and report cards. These should be shared with the other parent. Except for emergency situations, the parent then having physical care has a responsibility of communicating to the other parent the need to make the decision and making the necessary information available. Both parents have an obligation to personally discuss these problems with each other.

Section 598.41(2) requires a court denying joint custody to identify clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child's best interest.

In Re the Marriage of Bartlett · filed 1988-06-29(2)

A court denying joint custody must cite in its decision clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and parent should be severed. ... We determine there are not clear and convincing reasons to deny joint custody. We modify the trial court’s order to provide for joint custody with physical care in Peter.

Section 598.41(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests before a court denies joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Athy · filed 1988-09-19(2)

We conclude there isn’t clear and convincing evidence sufficient to deny joint custody in this case.

Section 598.41(3) makes no single joint custody factor a prerequisite, and no fixed number of satisfied factors automatically requires or prohibits joint custody.

In re the Marriage of Bulanda · filed 1989-11-27(3)

Section 598.41(3) of the Iowa Code sets forth nine factors to be considered when making joint custody determinations. No single one of the factors listed in section 598.41(3) is a condition precedent to allowing joint custody, nor is there a certain number of factors which, when satisfied, will either mandate or prohibit a joint custody award.

Section 598.41 requires clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests before a court denies joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Holcomb · filed 1991-04-02(2), (3)

To deny joint custody requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not reasonable and not in the best interest of the child ... Joint custody is appropriate. We modify the decree to provide for joint custody with physical care in Rawnene.

When parents agree to joint custody, section 598.41(4) does not require the court to apply subsection (3) custody factors, though those factors remain appropriate to consider when awarding physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Allan Legrand and Connie Legrand Upon the Petition of Allan Legrand, and Concerning Connie Legrand · filed 2014-03-12(4)

Thus, pursuant to section 598.41(4) we are not required to apply the subsection 3 factors. Although not required, those subsection 3 factors remain appropriate for our consideration when determining the award of physical care.

A parent seeking to replace joint custody with sole custody must show that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Daren Lee Lauritsen and Dana Marie Lauritsen Upon the Petition of Daren Lee Lauritsen, and Concern · filed 2014-07-16(2)(b)

Dana has not provided sufficient evidence for us to find any substantial change in circumstances that bear upon legal custody or that “joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interests of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b) (2013).

Section 598.41(2)(b) permits denial of joint legal custody when clear and convincing evidence under the statutory factors shows it is unreasonable and contrary to the children’s best interests; severe, protracted parental communication problems can support that finding.

In Re the Marriage of Gensley · filed 2009-12-17(2)(b)

If the district court does not grant joint legal custody, the court must cite clear and convincing evidence, according to the enumerated factors listed above, that joint legal custody is unreasonable and not in the children’s best interests “to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” ... We agree with the district court that consideration of the statutory factors weighs against joint legal custody. The overriding factor weighing against joint legal custody is the parties’ utter inability to communicate with each other, which is a result of their toxic relationship.

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires a court that declines joint legal custody to cite clear and convincing evidence supporting its decision.

In Re the Marriage of Robert W. Grunder and Connie M. Grunder Upon the Petition of Robert W. Grunder, and Concerning Con · filed 2014-05-29(2)(b)

If the court does not grant joint legal custody, it must cite clear and convincing evidence to support its decision.

Section 598.41(5)(b) entitles parents with joint legal custody to equal participation in decisions about the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.

In Re the Marriage of Jill R. Miller and Shawn W. Miller Upon the Petition of Jill R. Miller, petitioner-appellee/cross- · filed 2015-06-24(5)(b)

We emphasize the parties have joint legal custody, which means they are entitled to “equal participation in decisions affecting the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b).

Section 598.41(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests before a court grants sole legal custody.

Rees v. Calef · filed 2015-06-10(2)(a)–(b)

We conclude clear and convincing evidence does not support the grant of sole legal custody to Calef. See Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(a)–(b) (noting “that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed”).

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interest before a court awards sole legal custody.

In Re the Marriage of Martin G. Coon and Rebekah A. Coon Upon the Petition of Martin G. Coon, and Concerning Rebekah A. · filed 2015-09-10(2)(b)

To award sole legal custody there must be clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody “is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

Section 598.41(5)(b) preserves a joint legal custodian’s equal participation in decisions about a child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction when the other parent receives primary physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Angela Marie Harris and Patric David Harris, Upon the Petition of Angela Marie Harris · filed 2016-03-25(5)(b)

We emphasize, however, that allocating physical care of the children to Angela does not deprive Patric of his “[r]ights and responsibilities as joint legal custodian . . . to equal participation in decisions affecting the child[ren’s] legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b).

Section 598.41(5)(b) gives joint legal custodians equal participation in education decisions; when they cannot agree on a school, the physical-care parent has final say.

In Re the Marriage of Cara Lynn Matteson and Taylor Bryce Matteson Upon the Petition of Cara Lynn Matteson, and Concerni · filed 2017-01-25(5)(b)

Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(b) grants both joint legal custodians with rights and responsibilities to equal participation in decisions affecting children’s education. Thus, Taylor was entitled to be consulted about where the children attend school; but when the parties were unable to agree on which school, the final say on the subject should be with the parent having physical care of the children—Cara.

Section 598.41(5)(b) preserves each joint legal custodian’s equal participation in decisions about the children’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction when physical care is awarded to one parent.

In Re the Marriage of Zachary Ryan Kapfer and Jill Marnee Kapfer Upon the Petition of Zachary Ryan Kapfer, and Concernin · filed 2017-11-08(5)(b)

Allocating physical care of the children to Jill should not deprive Zachary of his rights and responsibilities as their joint legal custodian. Specifically, he should continue to enjoy equal participation in decisions impacting the children’s “legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b).

Section 598.41(2)(b) supports sole legal custody when clear and convincing evidence shows joint custody is unreasonable, including a parent’s limited ability to participate and make custodial decisions while incarcerated.

In Re the Marriage of Stephanie Kay Makela and Wayne L. Makela Upon the Petition of Stephanie Kay Makela, petitioner-app · filed 2017-05-17(2)(b)

Upon our de novo review, we agree with the district court Stephanie proved by clear and convincing evidence joint legal custody was unreasonable.

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires an award of sole legal custody to explain why joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Jensen · filed 2018-09-12(2)(b)

Regarding legal custody, the stipulation and agreement signed by the parties, which granted Noah sole legal custody of the children, does not state “that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interest before a court awards sole legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Demmer · filed 2018-09-12(2)(b)

To award sole legal custody there must be clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody “is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b). ... Because the parties agreed to joint legal custody, the trial court should not have granted sole legal custody to Josh.

An award of physical care to one parent does not deprive the other joint legal custodian of equal participation in decisions about the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.

Tressel v. Kuehl · filed 2019-03-20(5)(b)

Further, the award of “physical care of [O.J.K.] to [Becky] does not deprive [Brandon] of his ‘[r]ights and responsibilities as joint legal custodian . . . to equal participation in decisions affecting the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.’” See Harris, 877 N.W.2d at 444 (quoting Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b)).

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests before a court awards sole legal custody; persistent conflict that prevents joint decisions about the child can satisfy that standard.

Bowlin v. Swim · filed 2020-06-03(2)(b)

“If the district court does not grant joint legal custody, the court must cite clear and convincing evidence, according to the enumerated factors listed above, that joint legal custody is unreasonable and not in the children's best interests ‘to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.’” Gensley, 777 N.W.2d at 714 (citing Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b)). ... We agree with the court that Cody’s actions show joint legal custody was not a viable option here.

Clear and convincing evidence that parental conflict prevents effective communication can support an award of sole legal custody under section 598.41(2)(b).

In re the Marriage of Milne · filed 2020-09-02(2)(b)

We find clear and convincing evidence that the relationship between Jeff and Alyssa is too toxic to support joint legal custody.

Section 598.41(2)(b) permits sole legal custody only on clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests to the extent that the legal custodial relationship with a parent should be severed.

In re the Marriage of Heim · filed 2021-01-21(2)(b)

Sole legal custody should only be granted if there is clear and convincing evidence “that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

When a court gives one parent sole authority over medical and educational decisions, section 598.41(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

Armstrong v. Curtis · filed 2021-01-21(2)(b)

In unbundling the authority to make medical and educational decisions and awarding that power to Easton, the court in effect awarded Easton sole legal custody over those issues. If the district court grants sole custody to one parent, it must cite clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the child’s best interests to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed. Iowa Code § 589.41(2)(b).

Section 598.41(2)(b) allows sole legal custody when clear and convincing evidence shows joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests; efforts to alienate the child from the other parent can support that finding.

Peterson v. Thurston · filed 2021-09-22(2)(b)

In light of her concerted efforts to alienate Anthony from the child, as well as the other factors cited by the district court, we affirm the district court’s grant of sole legal custody to Anthony.

Section 598.41(2)(b) permits sole legal custody when the parents’ inability to communicate and make decisions together makes joint custody unworkable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

Kocinski v. Heather L. Christiansen n/k/a Heath L. Soyer · filed 2021-11-03(2)(b)

Bearing in mind our primary consideration is C.B.K.’s best interest, his parents’ inability to communicate and make decisions together means joint custody is no longer workable.

Section 598.41(3) requires a court to consider its listed factors when either parent requests joint legal custody; supported findings on those factors may justify awarding sole legal custody in the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Lyga · filed 2022-01-12(3)

If either parent asks the court for joint legal custody, a court must consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020). ... The district court’s evaluation of the section 598.41(3) factors was thorough and its findings are supported by the evidence in the record. The decree granting sole legal custody of the children to Katherine is in the children’s best interest.

When parents agree to joint legal custody, section 598.41(4) makes the subsection (3) custody factors inapplicable to a decision to award sole legal custody.

Deauntre Will Smith v. Chesmore · filed 2023-01-25(4)

More importantly, at the start of the trial, the parties informed the court they agreed to joint legal custody. ... see also id. § 598.41(4) (stating the factors in section 598.41(3) for determining custody “shall not apply when parents agree to joint custody”); ... For these reasons, we modify the grant of sole legal custody to Smith to instead place the child in the parties’ joint legal custody.

Section 598.41(2) favors joint legal custody when the parents’ communication difficulties do not require sole legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Pence · filed 2023-11-21(2)

Given our conclusion that physical care of the daughters should be awarded to Myren rather than Pence, it follows that we also deny Pence’s request for sole legal custody. Iowa law strongly favors joint legal custody.

Section 598.41(2)(b) allows sole legal custody when clear and convincing evidence shows joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

Lynch v. Moreno · filed 2022-05-11(2)(b)

The foregoing clearly and convincingly shows “that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

Section 598.41(2)(b) does not permit a court to give one parent final decision-making authority while awarding both parents joint legal custody.

In re The Marriage of Sokol · filed 2022-08-17(2)(b)

The legislature has instructed that, “If the court does not grant joint custody under this subsection, the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence . . . that joint custody is unreasonable and . . . the legal custodial relationship between the child and parent should be severed.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b). A district court can either grant joint legal custody, with the equal rights to parents that it entails, or sever the legal custodial relationship as to one parent. The code does not permit an unequal distribution of decision-making authority, or an unbundling of decision-making authority, when both parents retain joint legal custodian powers.

Section 598.41 limits judicial discretion in child custody proceedings to the circumstances it sets out; after an initial custody decree, a court lacks authority to resolve a joint custody impasse unless a parent seeks modification of custody.

In re Marriage of Frazier · filed 2024-01-12

“Divorce under Iowa law is strictly statutory,” Bitner v. Bitner, 176 N.W.2d 162, 164 (Iowa 1970), and the district court’s discretion in child custody proceedings is limited to considering the circumstances set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41. Beyond the initial custody decree, where the court is allowed to make decisions in the child’s best interest, the Iowa statutory scheme places parental decisions with the parents, not the court.

A parent without legal custody cannot be awarded physical care of a child.

In re the Marriage of Anderson · filed 2024-10-30(5)(a)

But because we affirm the award of sole legal custody to Molly, we need not consider this claim—a parent without legal custody of a child cannot be awarded physical care.

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows a court awarding joint legal custody to award either joint physical care or physical care to one parent, according to the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Wagner · filed 2026-03-11(5)(a)

When the court awards joint legal custody to the parents, the court may award joint physical care or physical care to one parent.

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires courts to consider joint custody even when parents disagree and to evaluate statutory factors before finding it unreasonable or contrary to the child’s best interests.

Herman v. Morrison · filed 2026-05-13(2)(b)

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires the court to consider granting joint custody even when the parties do not agree to joint custody and sets out factors which courts must consider before determining that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider statutory factors when deciding joint custody, and parents’ inability to communicate and support each other may overcome the preference for joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Eilers · filed 1994-11-28(3)

In determining if joint custody should be awarded, a court is to consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (1993). There may be situations in which the parents’ lack of communication and mutual support may overcome the preference for joint custody. ... The district court found joint custody was not appropriate in this case due to the parties’ severe inability to communicate about issues affecting their child. We concur with this conclusion.

Section 598.41(5) gives joint legal custodians equal participation in decisions about their children's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.

In Re the Marriage of Pundt · filed 1996-02-28(5)

As joint legal custodians Ricky and Jeanice will have equal participation in decisions affecting the children's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction. Iowa Code § 598.41(5).

Section 598.41 favors joint custody without creating a presumption or allowing one parent to veto it; a parent's opposition is one factor to consider.

In Re the Marriage of Weidner · filed 1983-09-21

In enacting section 598.41 the legislature did not use the word presumption and we find no such presumption in Iowa law. Clearly, however, our statutes now express a preference for joint custody over other custodial arrangements and do not allow one-party vetoes. One parent’s opposition to joint custody is only one of the several factors which the court must consider when the other parent has requested joint custody.

Section 598.41(3) requires custody arrangements to be evaluated under the children’s best interests; difficulty communicating and supporting each other’s relationship with the children can support denial of joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Butler · filed 1984-02-21(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) sets forth the factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement is in the best interest of the children. The trial court, pursuant to section 598.41(2), stated in its decision the reasons for denying joint custody. The court noted that the parties have had problems communicating and that Mary was opposed to a joint custody arrangement. The court also expressed doubts as to the parties’ ability to support each other’s relationship with the children. ... After reviewing the record in this case, we see no reason to disturb the trial court’s decision on this issue.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding whether joint custody is reasonable.

In Re the Marriage of Garvis · filed 1987-06-24(3)

Section 598.41(3) provides eight factors the court must consider when determining whether joint custody is reasonable. ... The trial court concluded that pursuant to the factors enumerated in section 598.41(3), joint custody would be unreasonable under the circumstances. We agree.

Section 598.41(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests before a court may deny it.

In Re the Marriage of Stanley · filed 1987-06-24(2)

Recognizing that the enactment of the aforementioned statute itself constituted a substantial change in circumstances, we believe the court’s findings adequately illustrate that clear and convincing evidence exists that joint custody would be unreasonable and not in the best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child's best interests before joint custody is denied.

In Re the Marriage of Dunkerson · filed 1992-03-24(2)

We find nothing in the record which rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable or not in the best interests of the children. We therefore affirm the trial court on this issue.

A lack of parental communication justifies denying joint custody only when it exceeds the usual acrimony of divorce.

In Re the Marriage of Ertmann · filed 1985-09-24(3)(c)

To be significant enough to justify a denial of joint custody, a lack of ability to communicate must be something more than the usual acrimony that accompanies a divorce.

Under § 598.41(3), parents’ inability to communicate or support each other’s relationship with the child can make joint legal custody unworkable.

In Re Marriage of Liebich · filed 1996-02-28(3)

After careful examination of the above-listed factors, we agree with the district court’s decision to grant sole legal custody to Rick. The district court found joint custody unworkable because the parents do not get along and are barely civil to one another. The parents are unable to communicate with one another and unwilling to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Section 598.41(2) requires a court to consider joint custody when either parent requests it, even if the parents disagree.

In Re the Marriage of Stacia M. Meierotto and Ryan E. Meierotto Upon the Petition of Stacia M. Meierotto, and Concerning Ryan E. Meierotto · filed 2015-10-14(2)

Pursuant to Iowa Code section 598.41(2) (2013), “On the application of either parent, the court shall consider granting joint custody in cases where the parents do not agree to joint custody.”

Section 598.41(2)(b) allows a parent to overcome the preference for joint custody with clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

Meek v. Gary Brown, Jr. · filed 2022-08-17(2)(b)

But a parent can overcome that preference with “clear and convincing evidence . . . that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

Section 598.41(3) requires consideration of custody factors, including child safety and the parents’ ability to communicate, when deciding whether joint legal custody serves the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Higgins · filed 2026-04-29(3)

With Robert’s admitted methamphetamine use and the lack of compliance with the conditions that would ensure safe contact with the child, we find clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is not in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(6) treats enactment of subsection (1) as a substantial change in circumstances that can justify modifying an earlier custody decree.

In Re Marriage of Dethrow · filed 1984-09-06(6)

Iowa Code section 598.41 was enacted and went into effect in 1982, after the initial custody decree was rendered in 1981, and before the modification decree was rendered in 1983. We therefore conclude that there was a substantial change in circumstances which could justify modifying the initial decree.

Section 598.41(3) custody factors guide the best-interests assessment when a parent seeks to modify custody.

In re the Marriage of Dore · filed 2019-09-11(3)

On our de novo review of the facts and circumstances of this case in conjunction with the custody factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2017)2 and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974),3 we find the...father has failed to establish he can more effectively minister to the child’s wellbeing.

Section 598.41(2)(b) permits sole legal custody when continuing joint legal custody is unreasonable and sole custody serves the child’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Mau · filed 2024-12-04(2)(b)

We affirm, as it was “unreasonable” to continue joint legal custody and sole legal custody with Ann Marie was in the child’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

When either parent requests joint legal custody, section 598.41(3) requires the court to consider its listed factors.

In re Marriage of Nelson · filed 2025-02-19(3)

If either parent asks the court for joint legal custody, a court must consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3).

Section 598.41(2)(a)’s reference to an application by either parent signals that parental agreement is unnecessary for joint legal custody, rather than imposing a strict application prerequisite.

In re the Marriage of Young · filed 2026-01-28(2)(a)

From this context, the phrase “[o]n the application of either parent” is less a prerequisite for granting joint legal custody than a signal that parental agreement is not needed.

Section 598.41 places custody and visitation decisions with the court; the court cannot delegate its authority to modify those decisions to a therapist or another person.

In re the Marriage of Stephens · filed 2012-02-15

It is well established that the district court is the only entity that can modify a custody or visitation order, subject to the review of the appellate courts. In re Marriage of Brown, 778 N.W.2d 47, 54 (Iowa Ct.App.2009); see also Iowa Code § 598.41 (providing the factors the court should considering in awarding custody and visitation rights). This obligation to modify a decree cannot be delegated to any person or entity because that person or entity has no jurisdiction to render such a decision.

Section 598.41’s child-custody factors apply in physical-care modification proceedings.

In re Marriage of Asche · filed 2024-01-10

“The criteria for determining child custody are applied in modification proceedings,” including the factors found in Iowa Code section 598.41 and other modification cases.

Section 598.41(3)’s non-exclusive factors apply when deciding a request to modify joint physical care.

Rudd v. Shaffer · filed 2025-04-23(3)

In assessing Karlee’s claim for physical care, we consider the non-exclusive factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2023) and our case law.

Section 598.41(3)(e) makes each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent a custody factor; efforts to deprive the child of that relationship weigh against custody.

In Re the Marriage of Leyda · filed 1984-09-19(3)(e)

We have studied what the testimony tells us about “[t]he characteristics of each parent, including age, character, stability, mental and physical health,” ... as well as “[wjhether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child,” Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(e). ... Further, she is adamant in seeking to deprive Kim of all meaningful relationship with her father.

Section 598.41(3)(e) directs courts deciding custody to consider whether each parent can support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

In Re the Marriage of Wedemeyer · filed 1991-08-27(3)(e)

Iowa Code section 598.41 (1989) lists a number of factors to guide the court in child custody determinations. These factors emphasize the importance of the child’s physical and emotional contacts with both parents. One of the statutory factors directs the trial court to consider whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e).

Section 598.41(1) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s continuing contact with the other parent a significant factor in determining custody.

In Re the Marriage of Downing · filed 1989-02-07(1)

As noted above, the Code provides the court shall consider denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1987). This statute registers the legislature’s belief that relationships between children and their custodial and noncustodial parents are essential for that child’s well being. Thus, it is our duty to see Courtney and Alyssa are placed where a satisfactory relationship between them and both parents will most likely be accomplished.

Section 598.41(1) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s continuing contact with the other parent a significant factor in deciding custody.

In Re the Marriage of Shanklin · filed 1992-03-24(1)

The denial by one parent of continuing contact with the other, without just cause, is a significant factor in determining custody. Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1991). We are concerned, as was the trial court, if the child is placed in Jeanene’s primary physical care she will not foster meaningful contact between the child and William. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to place primary physical care of the child with William.

Section 598.41(1) makes unjustified denial of visitation a significant custody factor, but domestic violence can diminish its weight.

In Re the Marriage of Daniels · filed 1997-04-30(1)

A parent's denial of visitation without just cause is a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1); see also In re Marriage of Quirk-Edwards, 509 N.W.2d 476, 480 (Iowa 1993); In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 399 (Iowa 1992). Carla's prolonged reluctance to permit Bruce to visit the children reflects adversely on her custodial judgment. However, the evidence of domestic violence in this case operates to diminish the significance of this factor in awarding custody.

Section 598.41 custody factors carry different weight depending on the facts of each case.

In Re the Marriage of Rebouche · filed 1998-09-30

We identify numerous factors to help determine which parent should serve as the primary caretaker of the children in a divorce. In re Marriage of Daniels, 568 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Iowa App.1997) (citation omitted); see Iowa Code § 598.41 (1997). Some factors are given greater weight than others, and the weight ultimately assigned to each factor depends on the particular facts of each case.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider its nonexclusive custody factors when determining a custodial arrangement.

In Re the Marriage of Jaime McManus and Thomas Ronald McManus Upon the Petition of Jaime McManus, and Concerning Thomas · filed 2014-10-15(3)

The Iowa Code provides a nonexclusive list of factors the court shall consider in determining a custodial arrangement.

Section 598.41(5)(b) requires a parent awarded physical care to support the child’s relationship with the other caregiver.

In Re the Marriage of Ryan T. Gray and Robin R. Gray Upon the Petition of Ryan T. Gray, and Concerning Robin R. Gray · filed 2014-05-29(5)(b)

Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(b) requires the parent awarded physical care to support the other caregiver’s relationship with the child. We expect Robin to comply with this obligation and foster LEG’s relationship with his father through liberal visitation and mutual respect.

Section 598.41(3)(e) makes a parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent a factor in awarding physical care.

Lane Kyle McMullen v. Isenhart · filed 2015-03-11(3)(e)

We also agree with the district court’s finding that Isenhart failed to support McMullen’s relationship with the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e). ... This factor supports the district court’s decision to grant McMullen physical care of the child.

Section 598.41(1)(c) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s contact with the other parent a significant factor in deciding physical care.

Upon the Petition of Joseph Michael Diaz, and Concerning Stephanie Michelle Chia · filed 2015-06-24(1)(c)

Moreover, we agree with the district court’s finding that Joseph engaged in “subterfuge to gain physical care of the minor child” during the pendency of the case. This weighs against Joseph’s claim that he should be awarded physical care of L.D. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c) (“The court shall consider the denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum contact with the other parent, without just case, a significant factor in determining the ...proper custody arrangement.”); see also In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 399 (Iowa 1992) (applying the consideration to both custody and physical care determinations).

Section 598.41(1)(c) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent a significant factor in deciding custody.

In Re the Marriage of Rachel Joann Gemmell and Andrew Neal Gemmell Upon the Petition of Rachel Joann Gemmell, petitioner · filed 2016-04-27(1)(c)

Most significantly, we find Rachel has proved unwilling to support Andrew’s role as a father. See id. at 700 (“The parent awarded physical care is required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.”); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c) (“The court shall consider the denial of one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement.”).

Denial of a child’s contact with the other parent without just cause is a significant factor in determining custody.

Brayden J. Flick v. Lindsey R. Stoneburner N/K/A Lindsey R. Heman · filed 2016-05-11(1)(c)

One significant factor supporting the award in favor of Brayden is Lindsey’s unwillingness to support Brayden’s visitation with the child.

Section 598.41(3)(e) considers whether a parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the children when deciding physical care.

Byerly v. Goldsberry · filed 2016-08-17(3)(e)

Byerly showed himself to be fully capable of supporting Goldsberry’s relationship with the children. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e). Although he kept the children from her when the disagreement about school enrollment first surfaced, he facilitated the temporary joint physical care arrangement and assisted with school pick-ups and other childcare matters on her parenting days.

Section 598.41(5)(b) requires a parent awarded physical care to support the child’s relationship with the other parent; failure to do so supports placing physical care with the other parent.

McClellan v. Amber Lynn Robins · filed 2016-09-14(5)(b)

“The parent awarded physical care is required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 700 (Iowa 2007) (citing Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b)). Following Amber’s move to Iowa City in February 2014, she has not supported Shawn’s relationship with the child. We conclude the district court properly placed physical care of the child with Shawn.

Section 598.41(3)(e) makes each parent's ability to support the child's relationship with the other parent a factor in determining custody.

In Re the Marriage of Marsha Ann Rodasky and Daniel Glenn Rodasky Upon the Petition of Marsha Ann Rodasky, N/K/A Marsha · filed 2016-12-02(3)(e)

Ultimately, Dan and Joanie’s behavior toward Marsha tipped the scales in favor of granting Marsha physical care of E.R. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (listing each parent’s ability to support the other parent’s relationship with the child as a factor to consider in determining custody).

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires a court deciding physical care to consider a parent’s efforts to alienate the children from the other parent.

In re the Marriage of Rockwell · filed 2019-01-09(1)(c)

Nathan also suggests “the trial court underestimate[d] the ongoing efforts by Heather to alienate the children from” Nathan. We agree with Nathan that the court was required to consider such matters, see Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c), but we disagree with him that the court failed to honor the requirement.

Section 598.41(3)(e) makes each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent a key factor in deciding physical care.

In re the Marriage of Stice · filed 2019-02-20(3)(e)

Each parent’s ability to support the other parent’s relationship with the child is a key factor in deciding physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e).

Section 598.41(3) supplies the custody factors courts consider when deciding physical care after a paternity determination.

McKnight v. Anderson · filed 2021-05-12(3)

Courts consider the factors presented in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019).

Section 598.41(3)(e) directs courts deciding physical care to consider whether each parent can support the child’s relationship with the other parent; parental alienation may carry great weight when it would adversely affect the child.

In re the Marriage of Ferris · filed 2020-11-30(3)(e)

Joel’s parental-alienation argument targets the court’s consideration of “whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Id. § 598.41(3)(e). One parent’s attempt to alienate children from the other parent may “be given great weight if the evidence establishes [it] will adversely affect minor children.” In re Marriage of Vrban, 359 N.W.2d 420, 425 (Iowa 1984). ... On our review of the record, we find no evidence that Christi engaged in alienation that would adversely affect the children.

Section 598.41(3)(e) requires courts to consider which parent can better support the other parent’s relationship with the children; following a temporary visitation order strictly does not alone show unwillingness to provide that support.

In re the Marriage of DeMoss · filed 2020-11-30(3)(e)

We agree it would have been in the children’s best interests for Ashlee to show more flexibility in implementing the temporary visitation schedule. But the record does not show that her refusal to deviate from the court order signals an unwillingness to support Keith’s ongoing relationship with the children.

Section 598.41(5)(b) makes a parent's ability to support the child's relationship with the other parent a factor in awarding physical care.

Sheppard v. Reed · filed 2021-11-23(5)(b)

That being said, the critical factor in the court’s determination of physical care, and ours, was whether either parent could “support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b).

A parent awarded physical care must support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Brandyn T. Nolan Cobb v. Eiler · filed 2022-04-13(5)(b)

The parent awarded physical care is required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Section 598.41(5)(b) requires a parent awarded primary physical care to support the other parent’s relationship with the children.

In re Marriage of Wedemeyer · filed 2023-09-27(5)(b)

The Iowa Code also requires the parent awarded primary physical care to “support the other parent’s relationship with the [children].” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b).

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of custody factors, including each parent’s suitability, the child’s psychological and emotional needs, support for the child’s relationship with the other parent, and the child’s wishes in light of age and maturity.

In the Interest of B.C., A.C., J.C., and E.C., Minor Children · filed 2024-10-30(3)

The General Assembly has provided a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in custody arrangements, including their suitability as custodian, the child’s “psychological and emotional needs and development,” the parent’s support of the child’s relationship and communication with the other parent, and the child’s wishes (considering age and maturity). Iowa Code § 598.41(3).

Section 598.41(3) provides custody factors that include the children’s educational, emotional, material, and social needs.

In Re Marriage of Collingwood · filed 1990-07-26(3)

The factors considered in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code § 598.41(3) and in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974), and need not be listed here. They include the educational, emotional, material, and social needs of the children.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider a nonexclusive list of factors when determining a custodial arrangement.

In Re the Marriage of Lonnie J. Maynes and Cathy Maynes Upon the Petition of Lonnie J. Maynes, petitioner-appellant/cros · filed 2014-11-26(3)

The Iowa Code provides a nonexclusive list of factors the court shall consider in determining a custodial arrangement. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3).

Section 598.41(3)'s custody factors guide the determination of a child's long-term best interests when awarding physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Worthington · filed 1993-05-26(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 355-56 (Iowa 1983), and in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). All factors bear on the “first and governing consideration,” the court’s determination of what will be in the long-term best interests of the child. ... However, in light of the above factors, it remains in the children’s long-term best interests that primary physical custody remain with Michele.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors the court considers when deciding which custody arrangement serves a child’s best interest.

Axline v. Wylie · filed 2014-07-30(3)

In considering what custody arrangement would be in the child’s best interest, we consider the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2011) and those set forth in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41 enumerates the factors courts consider in awarding custody.

In Re the Marriage of Kyle Frank Smith and Lacy Kay Smith Upon the Petition of Kyle Frank Smith, and Concerning Lacy Kay Smith · filed 2014-12-10

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2011) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) directs courts to weigh custody factors, including each parent’s suitability, their ability to communicate, and their support for the child’s relationship with the other parent.

In Re the Marriage of Jolene Michelle Johnson and Paul Lee Johnson Upon the Petition of Jolene Michelle Johnson, and Concerning Paul Lee Johnson · filed 2015-03-11(3)

On our de novo review, we find that subsections (a), (c), (e), and (g) weigh heavily against continued joint physical care in that Jolene has demonstrated her parenting abilities are superior to Paul’s, the parties clearly cannot effectively communicate with each other, Paul and Cyrena actively subvert the children’s relationship with Jolene, and Jolene (along with P.J.’s counselor and the custody evaluator) is adverse to continued joint physical care.

Section 598.41 encourages joint legal custody but does not require joint physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Hickey · filed 1986-01-29(5)

The recently enacted statute which encourages joint custody refers to an award of joint legal custody, not necessarily joint physical care. ... It does not require joint physical care.

Section 598.41(2) favors preserving a child’s relationship with both parents, but that preference does not require divided physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Muell · filed 1987-04-22(2)

Although our statutes similarly recognize the desirability of preserving a child’s relationship with both parents after the onset of divorce, see Iowa Code § 598.41(2) (1985); see also In re Marriage of Miller, 390 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Iowa 1986), the courts of this state have stressed that this preference does not synonymously require divided physical care.

Section 598.41(5) does not require parents with joint custody to share joint physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Will · filed 1992-07-22(5)

Joint custody does not require joint physical care. Iowa Code § 598.41(5).

Section 598.41(1) directs courts, when reasonable and in the child’s best interest, to preserve maximum continuing contact with both parents and consider each parent’s willingness to allow access to the other.

In Re the Marriage of Kunkel · filed 1996-08-30(1)

In so far as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, the court should make an award of custody which- will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents and which will encourage the parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child. ... To effectuate that policy the court must consider the willingness of each party to allow the child access to the other party.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when joint legal custody is awarded, but the parents must be able to communicate effectively about the child’s routine care.

In Re Marriage of Hynick · filed 2007-02-16(5)(a)

The critical question in deciding whether joint physical care is also appropriate is whether the parties can communicate effectively on the myriad of issues that arise daily in the routine care of a child. We are convinced the record shows they cannot.

Section 598.41(5)(a) creates no presumption in favor of joint physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Hansen · filed 2007-06-15(5)(a)

We agree with the court of appeals that the 1997 and 2004 legislation did not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care.

Section 598.41(5)(a) does not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care.

In Re The Marriage Of Lyle Martin Hansen And Delores Lorene Hansen Upon The Petition Of Lyle Martin Hansen · filed 2007-06-15(5)(a)

We agree with the court of appeals that the 1997 and 2004 legislation did not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care.

Under § 598.41(3), parents’ strained communication about their children’s needs weighs against joint physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Bridget N. Musfeldt and Jacob L. Musfeldt, Upon the Petition of Bridget N. Musfeldt, and Concernin · filed 2014-06-25(3)

The statutory factors include the suitability of each parent as a custodian, the parents’ ability to communicate regarding the children’s needs, the continuity of caregiving both before and after the parents’ separation, each parents’ ability to support the other’s relationship with the children, the parents’ geographic proximity, the safety of the children, and any history of domestic abuse. Iowa Code § 598.41(3). ... We agree with the district court that the parents’ strained communication is an impediment to joint physical care.

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports joint physical care when it serves the children’s best interests and allows maximum continuing contact with both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Shane Ruckman and Mary Ruckman Upon the Petition of Shane Ruckman, and Concerning Mary Ruckman · filed 2014-07-30(1)(a)

Given our legislature’s directive that a child’s best interests are served by “the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents” and that joint physical care is permissible, we conclude, under the facts of this case, that changing the children’s care from Shane’s physical care to joint physical care between the parents is in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code §§ 598.1(1), .41(1)(a), .41(5)(a).

When joint legal custody is awarded, section 598.41(5)(a) requires the court to consider joint physical care if either parent requests it.

Erickson v. Blake · filed 2016-03-23(5)(a)

The court was required to consider joint physical care because Dianna requested it.

Section 598.41(3) custody factors support joint physical care when parents have shared caregiving, show mutual respect, have little conflict, and agree on routine parenting matters.

Draeger v. Barrick · filed 2016-04-27(3)

R.L.B.’s best interests are served by granting Ryan and Lindsey joint physical care. According to the record and the district court’s own conclusions, Lindsey and Ryan have satisfied most of the Hansen and Iowa Code section 598.41 factors. Ryan and Lindsey “have historically contributed to physical care [of R.L.B.] in roughly the same proportion,” they show “mutual respect,” they agree on each other’s approach to parenting, there is minimal conflict, and they agree on routine matters.

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows joint physical care when it serves the child’s best interests but creates no presumption in its favor.

In Re the Marriage of Sarah L. Kingrey and Justin J. Kingrey Upon the Petition of Sarah L. Kingrey, and Concerning Justi · filed 2016-04-27(5)(a)

Pertinent to our ruling is the application of Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a) (2013) to these facts. ... Rather, our statutory scheme simply makes joint physical care a viable option if it is in the child's best interests. ... Having considered all of the factors listed above, we agree with the district court that placing K.K. in Sarah’s physical care is in K.K.’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care on a parent’s request when the arrangement serves the children’s best interests; parental conflict and poor communication can make shared care inappropriate.

In Re the Marriage of Sandi I. Hansen and Andrew J. Hansen Upon the Petition of Sandi I. Hansen, and Concerning Andrew J · filed 2016-07-27(5)(a)

Upon the request of either parent, the court may award joint physical care unless such an arrangement is not in the best interests of the children. ... Upon review of the record, we agree with the district court’s application of the Hansen factors and the finding that shared physical care is inappropriate.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits denial of requested joint physical care when it is not in the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Jesse Jacob Leib and Abby Jo Leib Upon the Petition of Jesse Jacob Leib, and Concerning Abby Jo Le · filed 2016-09-28(5)(a)

Upon our de novo review of the “total setting presented” in this case, based on our factual findings and applicable law recited above, we determine that joint physical care is not in the best interests of the children.

When a parent requests joint physical care, section 598.41(5)(a) calls for considering whether that arrangement serves the child's best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Summer Nadine Martin and Blaine Dean Martin Upon the Petition of Summer Nadine Martin, and Concern · filed 2017-02-08(5)(a)

Because one of the parties requested joint physical care, we consider whether that option is in J.K.M’s best interests. ... Joint physical care, in conjunction with the first-refusal provision, is in J.K.M.’s best interests; she is able to continue with a schedule in which she has thrived and which maximizes her time with each parent.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care despite parental communication conflicts when those conflicts do not make shared care contrary to the child’s best interests.

Upon the Petition of Kory M. Fuerstenberg, and Concerning Leah L. Frette · filed 2017-05-03(5)(a)

Ultimately, on our review of the record and all the required factors, we find the parties’ communication conflicts are not substantial enough to conclude “that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and the arrangement serves the children’s best interests.

Petersen v. Nielsen · filed 2017-07-06(5)(a)

Joint physical care may be awarded if either parent requests it and it is in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires a court considering shared physical care to assess the total circumstances and determine whether the arrangement serves the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Abby Hoeger Naber and William Michael Naber Upon the Petition of Abby Hoeger Naber, and Concerning · filed 2017-08-02(5)(a)

In reviewing a request for shared care, we must consider the “total setting presented” in this case and determine what is in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and the arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Kevin Richard Huinker and Dody Jane Huinker Upon the Petition of Kevin Richard Huinker, and Concer · filed 2017-09-13(5)(a)

Joint physical care may be awarded if either parent requests it and it is in the best interests of the child. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2014). ... We affirm the district court’s conclusion that joint physical care was in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports joint physical care when it serves the children’s best interests and allows maximum continuing contact with both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Andrew Riehle Pavlovec and Amber Marie Pavlovec Upon the Petition of Andrew Riehle Pavlovec, and C · filed 2017-09-13(1)(a)

A joint-physical-care arrangement allowing the children maximum time with each parent is in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports joint physical care when it serves the child’s best interests by allowing maximum continuing contact with both parents.

Upon the Petition of Charles William Thomas, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Tyne Westfall, responde · filed 2017-10-11(1)(a)

It is in D.A.’s best interests to have the maximum time possible with each parent to allow D.A. to establish a relationship with both Westfall and Thomas. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (“The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award . . . which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated . . . and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child . . . .”). We therefore affirm the district court’s determination the parties will have joint physical care of D.A. and the corresponding care schedule fixed by the district court.

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows a court to order joint physical care only after a parent requests it.

Savary v. Murdach · filed 2018-02-07(5)(a)

If she was correct, the district court’s ruling would have to be modified, as the court may only order joint physical care after a parent requested it.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits denial of joint physical care when the parents’ inability to communicate and their conflict outweigh their history of shared caregiving.

In re the Marriage of Noborikawa · filed 2018-07-05(5)(a)

Although the extent to which both parents acted as caretakers to the children may support a joint-physical-care arrangement, this factor is mitigated by their inability to communicate and the degree of conflict between them.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and the arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Flaugh · filed 2018-09-12(5)(a)

Joint physical care may be awarded if either parent requests it and it is in the best interests of the child. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2017). We concur in the district court’s finding, “because of escalating domestic conflict and the petitioner’s relocation to Alvord, Iowa, that shared physical care is not in the best interests of the child.” We determine joint physical care would not be in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and the arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Burington · filed 2019-02-06(5)(a)

Joint physical care may be awarded if either parent requests it and it is in the best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and the arrangement serves the child’s best interests despite difficulties in parental cooperation and communication.

In re the Marriage of Cornish · filed 2019-02-20(5)(a)

The evidence shows that in spite of the parties’ difficulties in cooperating and communicating, the child is doing well under a joint-physical-care arrangement and granting one parent physical care would be contrary to the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits a joint physical care award only when at least one parent requests it.

In re the Marriage of Lewis · filed 2019-04-17(5)(a)

“Upon the request of either parent, the court may award joint physical care unless such an arrangement is not in the best interests of the children.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 886 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); accord Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a). Notably, neither parent requested the decree be modified to provide a joint-physical-care arrangement. As such, the district court had no statutory authority to order a joint-physical-care arrangement.

Section 598.41(5)(a) makes the child’s best interest the standard for joint physical care, with the statutory factors and other relevant circumstances informing that decision.

In re the Marriage of Grchan · filed 2019-08-21(5)(a)

“Any consideration of joint physical care . . . must . . . be based on Iowa’s traditional and statutorily required child custody standard—the best interest of the child.” In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007) (citing Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) [(2018)])....“[T]he factors listed [in section 598.41(3)] as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint physical care is in the best interest of the child.” Id. at 696....On our de novo review, we conclude the district court acted equitably in granting the parents joint physical care of the children.

Section 598.41(5)(b) allows joint physical care only when it serves the child’s best interest.

Thomsen v. Makinzie Rose Nelson · filed 2019-09-11(5)(b)

Thus, a court should order joint physical care only if will serve the child’s best interest.

Section 598.41(5)(a) makes the children’s best interests controlling when deciding whether to award joint physical care.

In re the Marriage of Brown · filed 2020-02-05(5)(a)

And as required by section 598.41(5)(a), our focus remains on the best interests of the children, not accommodations for Jake.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care only when it serves the child’s best interest.

Wendt v. Peterson · filed 2020-08-19(5)(a)

A court should order joint physical care only if it will serve the child’s best interest. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows joint physical care only when it serves the child’s best interest.

In re the Marriage of Terrones · filed 2020-11-30(5)(a)

Of course, a court should order joint physical care only if it will serve the child’s best interest. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41 does not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care.

In re the Marriage of Rickard · filed 2021-06-30

In his brief, Anthony stated that Iowa has a presumption in favor of joint physical care, and cited Iowa Code section 598.41 (2019). Section 598.41 contains no language indicating such a presumption.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care on either parent’s request when it serves the child’s best interests; historical caregiving, parental conflict, communication, and the effect of an existing arrangement inform that decision.

In re the Marriage of Irwin · filed 2021-08-18(5)(a)

Like the district court, our review of these factors leads us to conclude joint physical care is not appropriate for this family.

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows joint physical care when a joint custodian requests it, but parental conflict and distrust can make the arrangement contrary to the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Johnson · filed 2021-11-03(5)(a)

While the parties have both been involved parents and they generally agree on child-rearing practices, we agree with the district court that the level of distrust and conflict between the parents renders a shared-care arrangement unfeasible.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits a court to award joint physical care only when at least one parent requests it.

Noel v. Dorsey · filed 2022-09-21(5)(a)

Because neither Jessica nor Kevin requested joint physical care, the issue was not properly before the district court and should not have been ordered.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care only when the parents have joint legal custody.

In re Marriage of Beasley and Hikiji · filed 2022-11-17(5)(a)

Having affirmed modification of legal custody to sole legal custody in favor of Miyoko, we need not address the court’s modification away from joint physical care, as such an arrangement is only authorized when coupled with joint legal custody. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a); In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d 705, 717 n. 7 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009).

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care on either joint custodian’s request, but the children’s best interests govern whether to award it.

In re Marriage of Banister · filed 2022-11-17(5)(a)

Where, as here, “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.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2020). ... So while joint physical care might fulfill Shaun’s wish for fairness between him and Heather, we do not believe it’s in the children’s best interest given the caretaking arrangement in place during the marriage.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care only when the parents also have joint legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Cowger · filed 2023-10-11(5)(a)

Because Leslie was awarded sole legal custody, a joint-physical-care arrangement is not an option.

Section 598.41(5) permits joint physical care upon either parent’s request when joint legal custody is awarded.

In re the Marriage of Shannon · filed 2024-07-03(5)

It may be awarded “upon the request of either parent” when the court awards joint legal custody. Iowa Code § 598.41(5). ... Like the district court, we agree that joint physical care is in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings when a parent requests joint physical care and the court awards care to one parent; a brief rationale can satisfy that requirement when it permits appellate review.

In re the Marriage of Paul · filed 2025-07-02(5)(a)

Russell attacks the district court for rejecting joint physical care without explicitly analyzing the Hansen factors. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (requiring that when a parent requests joint physical care, the court’s decision to award physical care to one parent must 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”). It’s true that the decree did not include a lengthy explanation for rejecting Russell’s request for joint physical care. But the district court did say that an equal split of physical care was “totally unrealistic under the facts presented” and was not in the best interests of A.P. and N.P. The court pointed to Russell’s “inflexibility” when it came to sharing care of their daughters.5 Although terse, that rationale— along with our own reading of the record—allows us to review the physical-care determination.

Section 598.41(3) directs courts deciding physical care to consider the statutory factors, including which parent can better meet a child’s needs.

In re Marriage of Hanson · filed 2025-07-23(3)

When considering a physical-care arrangement, we consider the factors established by statute. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2024). ... While both parties have their faults, the record supports the court’s finding that Justin is the parent better able to meet M.H.’s needs.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care on either parent’s request when the parents have joint legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Garcia · filed 2025-10-01(5)(a)

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, as in this case, the district court may award joint physical care to both custodial parents upon the request of either parent. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2019).

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care only when both parents have joint legal custody.

Loya v. Carly Jane Flaws n/k/a Carly Jane Collette · filed 2025-10-15(5)(a)

Because we affirmed modification of legal custody in favor of Carly, we need not address joint physical care because such arrangement is not authorized with sole legal custody.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits a court that awards joint legal custody to award either joint physical care or physical care to one parent.

In re the Marriage of Harmelink · filed 2025-12-17(5)(a)

When the court awards joint legal custody to the parents, the court may award joint physical care or physical care to one parent.

A parent who says they would accept shared physical care as an alternative to primary physical care has requested joint physical care under section 598.41(5)(a).

In re the Marriage of Witt · filed 2026-02-11(5)(a)

However, during direct examination, Brad stated that although he was requesting primary physical care, he ultimately would be agreeable to shared physical care. We read this as a request for shared physical care in the alternative to primary physical care. Iowa Code § 598.41(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.”(emphasis added)).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for deciding a parent’s request for joint physical care, along with other relevant facts and circumstances.

In re the Marriage of Darville · filed 2026-03-11(3)

To determine whether a parent’s request for joint physical care is appropriate, we look to the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2025), as well as other facts and circumstances outlined in case law.

Section 598.41(5) allows joint physical care when it serves the child’s best interests and the parents can appropriately communicate and cooperate; joint physical care is not generally disfavored.

In Re Marriage of Ellis · filed 2005-09-14(5)

We thus believe that this 1997 legislation disavowed the general bias against joint physical care, finding it to be a viable disposition provided it is in the best interest of the affected child or children and the parents are able to appropriately communicate and cooperate.

Section 598.41(5) recognizes joint physical care as an option for divorcing parents when it serves the children’s best interests.

Melchiori v. Kooi · filed 2002-01-28(5)

Though there is common law saying divided care of the children in a dissolution is not favored, ... the Iowa legislature since these cases recognized joint physical care ... as an option for divorcing parents if in the best interests of the children. Iowa Code § 598.41(5) (2001).

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires a party to request joint physical care before a court may award it.

In Re the Marriage of Malissa Nikole Mourton and Russell Edward Mourton Upon the Petition of Malissa Nikole Mourton, and · filed 2017-01-11(5)(a)

The Iowa Code requires a party to request joint physical care before a court can award such a custody arrangement. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2015).

Section 598.41 guides physical-care decisions by the child's best interests, with stability and continuity of caregiving as important considerations.

In Re the Marriage of Benjamin Rigdon and Alicia Rigdon Upon the Petition of Benjamin Rigdon, petitioner-appellee/cross- · filed 2017-01-25

“[T]he basic framework for determining the best interest of the child” is well established. See Iowa Code § 598.41; Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696. Generally, stability and continuity of caregiving are important considerations. ... As a result, we hold that placing L.J.R. in Ben’s physical care will provide L.J.R. with the stability and continuity vital to L.J.R.’s health and long-term maturity.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when parents share legal custody and either requests it; the physical-care decision turns on the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Prusha · filed 2025-12-03(5)(a)

If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, as here, the district court “may award joint physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either parent.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a). ... Under these facts, we agree with the district court that the children’s best interests are best served by awarding physical care to Jordan.

When a parent requests joint physical care, section 598.41(5)(a) requires the court to consider it and, if denied, make specific findings explaining why it is not in the child’s best interest.

Black v. Newlin · filed 2019-07-24(5)(a)

If a parent has requested joint physical care, as Bart did here, the court must consider joint physical care; and if it denies joint physical care, the court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that awarding joint physical care is not in the child’s best interest.

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows a court to deny requested joint physical care when it is not in the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Black · filed 2022-04-13(5)(a)

On our review, we agree with the district court that a joint-care arrangement is not in the best interests of the children, and we accordingly affirm the district ... court’s denial of Alanna’s request for joint physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41(4) gives a joint custodial parent without physical care equal rights and responsibilities in raising the child.

In Re the Marriage of Zabecki · filed 1986-06-18(4)

In 1984 the legislature amended Iowa Code section 598.41(4) to clarify that a joint custodial parent, who does not also have physical care, has equal rights and responsibilities to participate in the rearing of the child.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when it serves the child’s best interests; one parent’s greater share of past care does not decide the issue by itself.

In Re the Marriage of Berning · filed 2007-12-12(5)(a)

In sum, Sheri’s role as the predominant caretaker is a factor in this case, but it is not an overwhelming factor mandating that she be awarded physical care of Ethan. ... After reviewing all of the evidence through the lens of the foregoing factors, we find the district court properly awarded joint physical care in this case.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide physical-care decisions.

Rolling v. Hoffman · filed 2014-06-11(3)

In making this physical-care decision, the district court is guided by the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), as well as other nonexclusive factors enumerated in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41 supplies the physical-care criteria for paternity actions.

Upon the Petition of Latravius Fenn, and Concerning Kimberly Baldwin · filed 2014-10-15

When physical care is an issue in a paternity action, we apply the criteria found in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2013).

Section 598.41’s physical-care criteria apply when a court decides physical care in a paternity-related action.

Servantez v. King · filed 2015-11-12

When physical care is an issue in a paternity related action, we apply the criteria found in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2013).

Section 598.41(5)(a) does not presume joint physical care; it permits that arrangement when it serves the child’s best interests.

Bohannon v. Smolik · filed 2016-09-28(5)(a)

“This passage does not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care.” In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007). Rather, it is an option when it is found to be in the best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(3)’s factors, together with other circumstances, inform whether joint physical care serves a child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Krueger · filed 2018-06-06(3)

The statutory factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2016) ... “as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint physical care is in the best interest of the child.” Id. ... After reviewing the entire record, including the testimony of all witnesses, we are convinced the district court properly considered all factors in making physical care and visitation decisions in the best interest of the children.