Iowa Code § 598.41

Section 598.41(3) guides physical-care decisions through custody factors; distance between parents can make joint physical care impracticable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

Brown v. Irwin · filed 2018-10-10(3)

In making the physical care determination, we look to the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and enumerated in our case law. ... In short, the distance between the parties makes an award of joint physical care impracticable, not in the best interest of the child, and inappropriate.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits shared physical care when joint legal custody is awarded and either parent requests it.

In re the Marriage of Carter · filed 2019-08-07(5)(a)

If the court awards joint legal custody to the parents, it may grant shared physical care “upon the request of either parent.” Id. § 598.41(5)(a). ... We agree with the district court’s conclusions and affirm the award of shared physical care to Jessie and Jared.

Section 598.41 permits shared physical care despite ordinary conflict between parents when that conflict does not prevent them from caring for their children together.

In re the Marriage of Seehase · filed 2020-10-07

Yet, we agree with the district court the parties’ conflict is not so unusual as to preclude shared care.

Section 598.41(3)’s custody factors guide physical-care determinations.

In re the Marriage of Reverol · filed 2021-04-14(3)

In making this determination, we are guided by the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019), and those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3)'s factors inform whether joint physical care serves a child's best interest.

Lansing v. Meyer · filed 2021-12-15(3)

We order joint physical care only if it is the child’s best interest. ... In making that determination, we consider the record as a whole in light of the factors identified in section 598.41(3) and our case law. ... Applying these principles here, we agree with the district court that joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.

Section 598.41(3)’s custody factors apply when reviewing a modification of physical care, with the children’s best interests as the primary concern.

In re the Marriage of Johnson · filed 2022-01-27(3)

As we review the modification decision, we consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021). In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007) (finding custody factors apply to physical care decisions). Our primary concern is the children’s best interests. Id.

Section 598.41(3)'s factors inform the best-interests determination when a court decides physical care.

In re the Marriage of Peckumn · filed 2022-03-02(3)

In making a physical-care determination, we focus on the best interests of the children. Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d at 101. That focus is informed by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021).

Section 598.41(5)(a) allows a court to require a proposed joint physical care parenting plan, but requires that step to occur before the court rules on joint physical care.

Watson v. Ollendieck · filed 2023-05-10(5)(a)

While Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a) does give the court discretion to “require the parents to submit, either individually or jointly, a proposed joint physical care parenting plan,” the statute requires that step to be completed “[p]rior to ruling on the request for the award of joint physical care.”

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding which physical care placement serves a child’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Miller · filed 2024-04-10(3)

The court considers the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974), in determining what physical care placement is in the best interests of the child. ... We conclude it is in G.M.’s best interests to be placed in Christian’s physical care.

Section 598.41(2)(a) requires the court to consider joint physical care when either parent requests it.

Rosenow v. Tara D. Link · filed 2024-10-16(2)(a)

The court must consider granting the parents joint physical care if either parent requests it. See id. § 598.41(2)(a). ... We agree that the record shows that joint physical care serves B.L.’s best interests and affirm the physical care provisions of the parties’ decree.

Section 598.41(3)'s factors are considered when deciding whether joint physical care serves a child's best interests.

In re Marriage of Thoene · filed 2025-03-19(3)

We also ... consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2022) and those spelled out in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3)'s custody factors guide whether joint physical care is in a child's best interest, including in a chapter 600B proceeding.

Martin v. Callender · filed 2025-06-18(3)

We are guided by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those discussed in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). When considering whether joint physical care is in the best interest of a child with two suitable parents, we especially focus on: (1) the “stability and continuity of caregiving”; (2) the ability of the parents to “communicate and show mutual respect”; (3) “the degree of conflict between [the] parents”; and (4) “the degree to which the parents are in general agreement about their approach to daily matters.”

Section 598.41(3) provides factors courts consider when deciding which parent should receive physical care in the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Swalin · filed 2025-11-13(3)

To determine the best interests of the children we consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2025), and the Iowa Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). ... After considering the above factors and on our de novo review, we determine Amy was properly granted physical care of the children.

Section 598.41(5) physical care decisions consider prior caregiving, parental communication and respect, conflict, and agreement on child rearing.

Ngor v. Kak · filed 2026-01-28(5)

The district court makes its physical care determination pursuant to the requirements of Iowa Code section 598.41(5) (2024) and will consider the factors enumerated by our supreme court in In re Marriage of Hansen. 733 N.W.2d 683, 695 (Iowa 2007). Those factors include approximation, the parents’ ability to communicate and demonstrate mutual respect, the degree of parental conflict, and the extent to which the parents agree about general child rearing practices.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors courts consider when deciding whether joint physical care serves a child’s best interests.

Wood v. Jacobsen · filed 2026-02-11(3)

In making this determination, we consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2025).

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

Cameron Cook, petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee v. Tuyet Noriega, respondent-appellee/cross-appellant. · filed 2017-09-27(5)(a)

The court found the parties “cannot communicate effectively,” noting they “cannot even divide up children’s toys without a physical altercation taking place.” While Cook argues the trial court’s findings are flawed, we conclude the findings are supported by the record and provide ample reason for denying joint physical care and placing the children in Noriega’s physical care.

In deciding primary physical care under section 598.41, courts give greater weight to the stability of the child’s relationship with the primary caregiver than to continuity of physical surroundings.

In Re the Marriage of Williams · filed 1998-12-28

However, our case law pláces greater importance on the stability of the relationship between the child and the primary caregiver over the physical setting of the child.

Section 598.41(3) lists nonexhaustive custody factors that also guide whether joint physical care is in the children’s best interests.

In RE the Marriage of Angela Marie Harris and Patric David Harris Upon the Petition of Angela Marie Harris · filed 2013-09-20(3)

As noted above, Iowa Code section 598.41(3) establishes a nonexhaustive list of factors guiding legal custody determinations. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3). We have explained those factors, along with other facts and circumstances, are also instructive in determining whether joint physical care is in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(3) factors apply to physical care decisions even when the parents agree to joint legal custody.

In Re the Marriage of David A. Godber and Betty K. Mbusi Upon the Petition of David A. Godber, and Concerning Betty K. M · filed 2014-05-14(3)

As discussed in Fennelly, the factors established in section 598.41(3) always apply to the determination of physical care, regardless of the agreement of the parties.

Section 598.41(5) guides physical-care decisions through relevant custody factors and the long-term best interests of the children.

In Re the Marriage of Luke Daniel Snowden and Amy Marie Snowden Upon the Petition of Luke Daniel Snowden, and Concerning · filed 2015-07-09(5)

On de novo review, we consider all of the relevant factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(5) and Marriage of Winter, and we conclude that awarding Luke physical care of the children and granting Amy liberal visitation is in the long-term best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors courts consider when deciding physical care of children.

In Re the Marriage of Michael Dean Malena and Mariellen Lee Malena Upon the Petition of Michael Dean Malena, and Concern · filed 2016-10-12(3)

In making the physical care determination, we look to the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and our case law.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors courts consider when deciding a child’s physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Francisco Garcia Lopez and Anna Christina Garcia Lopez Upon the Petition of Francisco Garcia Lopez · filed 2016-10-26(3)

In making the physical care determination, we look to the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and our case law.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for determining which parent should receive physical care of a child.

In Re the Marriage of Laronna Lea Orr and David Wayne Orr Upon the Petition of Laronna Lea Orr, and Concerning David Way · filed 2017-05-17(3)

In making the physical care determination, we look to the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and enumerated in our case law. ... On de novo review, upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, we conclude awarding LaRonna physical care of the children is appropriate.

Section 598.41(1)(a) makes a parent’s ability to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent an important factor in determining physical care.

Rexroat v. Troxel · filed 2017-09-13(1)(a)

The court continued, “[This] is an important factor favoring placement of [L.] with Scott rather than with Jackie; that being the ability of Scott to promote the child’s relationship with his other parent.”3 We agree, and add that Scott now reflects more emotional stability than Jackie, as Jackie continues to be unable to untangle herself from the emotional attachment to Scott and anger towards both Scott and his wife.

In determining physical care, section 598.41(1)(a) generally favors maximum continuing physical and emotional contact between children and both parents.

In re Marriage of Lange · filed 2017-12-06(1)(a)

Second, it is generally in the best interests of the children to have maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2015).

Under section 598.41(3)(d), a parent’s history as the primary caregiver weighs in the physical-care decision but does not determine it.

In re Marriage of Koster · filed 2017-12-06(3)(d)

Although Lisa’s historical role as the primary caregiver weighs in favor of her being granted physical care of the children, the attribute is not dispositive on the issue of physical care because “[s]uccessful parenting . . . implicates far more than a parent’s ability to attend to the daily details of raising a child.”

Section 598.41(3) factors remain relevant to deciding whether shared physical care serves the children’s best interests when the parents agree to joint legal custody but not joint physical care.

In re Marriage of Ortiz · filed 2018-02-07(3)

Certainly the section 598.41(3)3 factors are relevant considerations when determining if a shared-physical-care arrangement is in the best interests of the parties where the parties have not agreed to joint physical care.

Section 598.41(3) factors guide the court when it determines physical care of a child.

Mahedy v. Gibson · filed 2018-02-21(3)

When determining physical care, we are guided by the factors established in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) makes parental suitability, the effect of reduced contact with either parent, parental communication and care, and support for the other parent’s relationship with the child relevant to physical-care modification.

In re the Marriage of Lang · filed 2018-05-02(3)

Upon our de novo review, we agree with the district court that both Jeff and Katie are suitable custodians for this child. See id. § 598.41(3)(a). Regardless of which parent is granted physical care, the child will suffer from decreased contact with the other parent. See id. § 598.41(3)(b). Both parents have done an exemplary job in communicating with the other, actively caring for the child, and supporting the other parent’s relationship with the child. See id. § 598.41(3)(c)–(e).

Section 598.41 provides nonexclusive factors for deciding which parent should have physical care in the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Wood · filed 2019-02-06(3)

Upon our de novo review of the record and the nonexclusive factors set forth in section 598.41 and Iowa law, along with a careful study of the issues raised by Clinton on appeal, we affirm the physical care decision made by the district court.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors the court considers when deciding physical care.

In re the Marriage of Nevins · filed 2019-05-01(3)

We consider the statutory factors outlined in section 598.41(3) in reaching our decision.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider its custody factors when deciding which physical care arrangement serves a child’s best interests.

Moses v. Rosol · filed 2019-05-15(3)

Iowa Code § 598.41(3) enumerates the factors the court must consider when determining custody. ... While the language of section 548.41(3) applies these factors to custody determinations, our supreme court has determined that those factors are also relevant in determining which physical care arrangement is in the best interest of the child.

Section 598.41(3) custody factors are relevant to physical care decisions even though they do not directly govern those decisions.

Torres v. Morrison · filed 2019-05-15(3)

“Although Iowa Code section 598.41(3) does not directly apply to physical care decisions, . . . the factors listed here as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining” physical care.

Section 598.41(5)(b) requires a parent awarded physical care to support the other parent’s relationship with the children; failure to do so can make that parent unfit for physical care.

In re the Marriage of Ruba · filed 2019-11-27(5)(b)

No question, “[t]he parent awarded physical care is required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child[ren].” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 700 (citing Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b)). ... Bart’s contention is not without some force. But we share in the district court’s ultimate conclusion: “[A]fter some space has come with the dissolution decree, Andrea will be up to this challenge and better embrace Bart’s relationship with the children. If she fails to do so, however, she could demonstrate herself unworthy of being the primary physical care parent.” We concur in the district court’s physical-care analysis.

Section 598.41(3)(h) directs courts allocating physical care to consider the parents’ geographic proximity and how distance affects visitation and the child’s activities.

In re the Marriage of Martinez · filed 2020-08-05(3)(h)

However, at the time of trial, the evidence showed that the geographic proximity contributed to Jose missing visitation and L.M.’s extracurricular activities. Additionally, at the time of trial, Jose had not made any solid plans for relocation to be closer to L.M.’s residence. We consider this distance and its effects in determining how to apportion physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(h).

Section 598.41(3)(h) requires courts to consider the parents’ geographic proximity when deciding whether joint physical care serves the children’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of McCusker · filed 2022-03-30(3)(h)

Even if the Hansen factors weigh in favor of joint physical care, “[t]he geographic proximity of the parents” is a mandatory consideration under Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(h) and can serve as a “major obstacle” to shared care.

Section 598.41(3) factors inform physical care decisions focused on the child’s best interest.

In re the Marriage of Froiland · filed 2022-07-20(3)

To determine who should be granted physical care, we focus on the child’s best interest. In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007). This focus is informed by the factors from Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020).

Section 598.41(1)(a) permits an award of physical care to one parent with liberal visitation for the other when joint physical care is not warranted.

Ahmed Ala Hussin Ali Alibrahimy v. Massengale · filed 2022-11-02(1)(a)

We find joint physical care is not warranted and that Kasondra should be awarded physical care of the two children with liberal visitation to Ahmed. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a); see also In re Marriage of Hynick, 727 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Iowa 2007) (finding visitation rights are afforded to a parent who is not the primary caretaker).

Awarding one parent physical care does not take away either parent’s equal decision-making rights under joint legal custody, and both parents remain responsible for cooperating in the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Kisting · filed 2024-02-07(5)(b)

Though our allocation of physical care of the children to Sara does not deprive Matthew 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), in this case we find it necessary to stress the parents’ ongoing mutual responsibility to cooperate in the best interests of their children.

Section 598.41(3)(h) makes the parents’ geographic proximity a factor in custody decisions; distance between their homes can make joint physical care impractical.

Tayler Dawn Garland v. Dunn · filed 2021-11-03(3)(h)

One of these factors is “[t]he geographic proximity of the parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(h). ... The district court was correct in not entertaining a shared care arrangement as, given the circumstances of this case, a joint-care arrangement for A.D. is not appropriate.

Section 598.41(3) factors for legal custody also apply to physical-care determinations, even though the section does not expressly say so.

Benson v. Sullens · filed 2024-10-30(3)

Even though the factors for determining legal custody listed in section 598.41(3) do not expressly apply to physical-care determinations, we still apply them to those determinations.

Section 598.41(3) factors inform physical care decisions; difficulty communicating and conflict over parenting matters can weigh against joint physical care.

Harris v. Bridgett Fay Smith · filed 2025-01-09(3)

While both parents have contributed to the breakdown in the coparenting relationship, these facts confirm Terrell bears the most responsibility for failing to meet the Hanson or Iowa Code factors; particularly degree of conflict, inability to communicate, and degree of agreement on parenting matters. See 733 N.W.2d at 697–99; Iowa Code § 598.41(3).

Courts consider the custody factors in section 598.41(3) when deciding physical care.

In re Marriage of Greenfield · filed 2025-04-09(3)

In making a physical-care determination, we consider the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166– 67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide courts in deciding which physical-care arrangement serves a child’s best interests.

Davis v. Ladenthin · filed 2025-07-02(3)

In determining which physical-care arrangement is in the child’s best interests, we are guided by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2022) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider its custodial factors when determining physical care.

In re Marriage of Johanns · filed 2025-07-02(3)

In making this determination, the court considers the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2023) and those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3)(e) requires courts deciding physical care to consider whether a parent can support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Randall v. Trier · filed 2024-10-30(3)(e)

While this conflict may support a finding of physical care with one parent, part of our analysis is to determine whether the “parent can support the other parent’s 9 relationship with the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (2022), see also id. §§ 598.41(1)(c) (requiring the court to “consider the denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent” in determining custody), 600B.40(3) (applying section 598.41 to custody and visitation determinations for parents who were never married).

Under section 598.41(3), a parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent and ability to communicate can outweigh custody factors favoring the other parent.

In re Marriage of Jacobs · filed 2025-05-07(3)

Although we agree with David that some of the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) lean in his favor, our review of the parties’ respective support for the other’s relationship with the child and overall ability to communicate lead us to concur with the district court’s finding that Temeshia has shown she is the superior parent.

Section 598.41 provides nonexclusive factors that guide child custody determinations.

In re Marriage of Nall · filed 2025-10-29

Iowa Code section 598.41 sets forth a series of nonexclusive factors to guide our consideration of child custody.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider only the custody factors relevant to the case.

In re the Marriage of Cleary · filed 2026-05-13(3)

While section 598.41(3) provides a list of factors we “shall consider” to determine a proper custody arrangement, the statute requires us to consider only the factors that are relevant to the specific case before us.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors courts consider when deciding physical care.

Amber Kaczinski v. Welch · filed 2017-03-22(3)

In making the physical care determination, we look to the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and our case law.

Section 598.41(3) calls for consideration of factors concerning the children’s safety and other needs when deciding physical care.

In re the Marriage of Hutchens · filed 2022-08-03(3)

We also consider additional factors relating to the children’s safety and other needs. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2020); In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). ... Following our de novo review, we do not conclude Laura is best suited to serve as the children’s primary caregiver. Rather, we agree with the district court that the children’s best interests are served by placing physical care with Barry.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors courts consider when deciding which parent should have physical care of a child.

In re Marriage of Hargrafen · filed 2022-08-17(3)

In considering which parent should be awarded physical care of children, the court considers the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). ... We agree with the district court’s assessment that joint physical care is in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for determining physical care, including the child’s needs and the parents’ abilities.

Jacklynne Jade Herr v. See · filed 2023-11-08(3)

Instead, we focus our analysis on objective factors, such as the child’s needs and the parents’ abilities. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2022).

Past caregiving practices are a factor in deciding physical care, but they do not require continuing the same arrangement.

Hovey Jr. v. Davis · filed 2015-10-14(3)(d)

Historical caregiving practices do not require continuation of the same practices going forward.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors that guide an initial physical-care determination.

Upon the Petition of Jeremiah Thompson, and Concerning Amy Elsbury · filed 2015-02-11(3)

We are ... guided by the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2011) 1 as well as the factors enumerated in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974),2 in making the determination.

Section 598.41 supplies criteria the court applies when deciding whether to transfer custody to another parent.

In Re the Marriage of Gravatt · filed 1985-05-10

We considered the evidence in light of the criteria in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974) and Iowa Code section 598.41 and determine custody should be transferred to Bruce.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding physical care when neither parent requests joint physical care.

Upon the Petition of Gerald John Chartier, and Concerning Amanda Joy Peterson, F/K/A Amanda Joy Johnson · filed 2014-11-26(3)

As in this case, where neither party requests joint physical care, we use the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974), to determine which of the two parents is most likely to provide an environment that brings the child to health, both physically and mentally, and to social maturity.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for choosing a physical care parent, including each parent’s caregiving history, the child’s wishes, and the child’s safety.

In Re the Marriage of Kevin Allen Winey and Krista Dawn Winey Upon the Petition of Kevin Allen Winey, and Concerning Krista Dawn Winey · filed 2015-09-10(3)

To determine which parent would be the better parent to provide physical care, we consider the factors laid out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013). Relevant here are considerations of which parent has actively cared for the child since the separation, whether the custody arrangement is in accordance with the child’s wishes, and the safety of the child.

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

In Re the Marriage of Jared Allen and Victoria Allen Upon the Petition of Jared Allen, and Concerning Victoria Allen, N/K/A Victoria Cooling · filed 2016-03-23(3)

In making the physical-care decision, the district court is guided by the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2015), 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(3) lists factors courts consider when deciding physical care of a child.

In Re the Marriage of Daniel James Comstock and Jessica Comstock Upon the Petition of Daniel James Comstock, and Concerning Jessica Comstock · filed 2016-09-14(3)

We look to the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013)3 and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974),4 in making a physical-care determination.

Section 598.41(3) sets out factors courts consider when deciding which parent should have physical care of children.

In Re the Marriage of Brandon Kleve and Daphnie Kleve Upon the Petition of Brandon Kleve, and Concerning Daphnie Kleve · filed 2016-10-26(3)

In making this determination, we look at the list of factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013), as well as those articulated in Winter.

Section 598.41(3)’s factors are relevant to physical-care decisions, even though the subsection does not directly apply, regardless of the parents’ marital status.

Upon the Petition of Jaun-Paul Lee Bannister, and Concerning Amber Dawn Buban · filed 2016-11-23(3)

We also consider portions of the Iowa Code. In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007). (“Although Iowa Code section 598.41(3) [(2015)] does not directly apply to physical care decisions, we have held the factors listed here as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint physical care is in the best interest of the child.”). We apply these factors no matter the martial status of the parents.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding which physical care arrangement serves the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Amanda Jo Wilson and Ryan Eugene Wilson Upon the Petition of Amanda Jo Wilson, and Concerning Ryan Eugene Wilson · filed 2017-03-08(3)

In determining which physical care arrangement is in the children’s best interest, we consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3).

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

In re the Marriage of Eggeling · filed 2019-02-06(3)

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

Section 598.41’s factors guide physical care determinations alongside other relevant factors.

Hester v. Davis · filed 2019-05-15

In making this determination, we consider the list of factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2018), along with other relevant factors. ... Considering the relevant factors, including but not limited to Amanda’s ... historical role as the child’s primary caretaker, we agree with the district court that placement of the child in Amanda’s physical care was in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors courts consider when deciding physical care after a substantial change to a joint physical care arrangement.

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

We consider the statutory factors listed at Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2017) and those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) directs courts to consider its listed factors when deciding physical care.

Meller v. Hendrickson · filed 2020-01-23(3)

In determining a physical-care award, courts will consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2018).

Section 598.41(3)'s custody factors apply to physical care determinations.

In re the Marriage of Koak · filed 2021-01-21(3)

We consider statutory and common law factors when making physical care determinations. Id. at 696 (indicating the statutory factors listed for custody determinations in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2018) are applicable to physical care determinations); see In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) (including a nonexhaustive list of factors for courts to consider in making custody determinations).

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors that guide physical care determinations.

In re the Marriage of Christensen · filed 2021-01-21(3)

We are guided in this inquiry by the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019) and the non-exclusive factors enumerated in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3)'s factors are considered alongside other relevant facts and circumstances when determining the best physical care arrangement for children.

In re the Marriage of San Nicolas Law · filed 2021-05-12(3)

We consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) and other relevant facts and circumstances in determining the best physical care arrangement for the children.

Section 598.41(3)’s custody factors guide physical care decisions.

In re the Marriage of Lehman · filed 2021-12-15(3)

Turning to the substance of the district court’s decision, we consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020).

Section 598.41(3)(c) and (e) make a parent’s ability to communicate about the children’s needs and support their relationship with the other parent relevant to physical care.

In re Marriage of Edgerton · filed 2022-01-12(3)(c), (e)

While acknowledging that “Jessica is not without fault,” the court found she was more likely to communicate the children’s needs and support their relationship with Robert than if the roles were reversed. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c), (e). ... With that in mind, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that placing the children in Jessica’s physical care is in their best interests because she is the parent most likely to bring them to physical, mental, and social maturity.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide a court deciding which parent should have physical care.

In re Marriage of Jensen · filed 2022-01-27(3)

In making this decision, courts are guided by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) and the nonexclusive factors in In re Marriage of Winters, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors the court considers when deciding physical care, alongside the facts and circumstances identified in case law.

In re the Marriage of Kappelman · filed 2022-06-15(3)

We consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) and facts and circumstances set forth in our case law.

Section 598.41(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for assessing a child’s best interests and whether joint physical care is appropriate.

In re Marriage of Renken · filed 2022-08-17(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) lays out a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in that calculus and can also assist in determining the wisdom of a joint physical-care arrangement.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors courts consider when deciding which physical care placement serves the children’s best interests.

Hiatt v. Hiatt · filed 2022-11-02(3)

The court considers the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974), in determining a physical care placement in the best interests of children.

Section 598.41(3)'s factors guide an initial physical-care determination.

In re the Marriage of Boeck and Nelson · filed 2022-12-07(3)

Without consideration of the heavy burden required to modify an existing decree, our review as to A.N. centers on evidence addressing the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021). ... Our review of these factors does not support an award of joint physical care for A.N.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider its listed factors when deciding physical care.

Wagner v. Berns · filed 2023-04-12(3)

In the determination over a physical-care award, courts will consider the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021).

Section 598.41(3)'s factors are relevant to physical care decisions, although the subsection does not directly apply to them.

In re Marriage of Rigdon · filed 2023-07-13(3)

“Although Iowa Code section 598.41(3) does not directly apply to physical care decisions, . . . the factors listed here as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining” physical care.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for determining which physical care placement serves a child’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Janti · filed 2023-12-20(3)

The court considers the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2021) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974), in determining what physical care placement is in the best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors courts consider when deciding which parent should have physical care.

In re the Marriage of Oelberg · filed 2024-01-10(3)

We consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those discussed by our supreme court in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) requires courts to consider factors including parents’ ability to communicate and their history of caring for the child when deciding physical care.

Zamora v. Gonzales · filed 2025-03-19(3)

In doing so, we consider the factors listed in section 598.41(3). Those factors include the suitability of each parent to be the child’s custodian, the parents’ ability to communicate about the child’s needs, each parent’s history of caring for the child, and each parent’s ability to support the other parent’s relationship with the child. ... The district court declined to grant joint physical care of E.Z., and we agree that such an arrangement would not serve E.Z.’s best interests. The distance ... between the parties’ residences makes joint physical care unfeasible now that the child attends school. And a joint-physical-care arrangement would prove difficult given the amount of conflict Miguel and Gabrielle display when communicating about E.Z.

Section 598.41’s factors guide physical-care decisions, including consideration of the children’s stability and continuity of care.

In re the Marriage of Mines · filed 2025-03-19

To that end, we are guided by the ... factors in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2023) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). ... And so, balancing the relevant factors, we agree that continuing physical care with Michaella best serves the children.

Section 598.41(3) directs courts deciding physical care to consider how parents communicate about the child’s needs and support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Ilmberger v. Shieghe M. Reinhardt f/k/a Shieghe Donald · filed 2025-06-18(3)(c), (e)

Two relevant factors here include “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs” and “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c), (e). Shieghe’s actions, including denying Dillan’s visitation and severely restricting the child’s time with extended family, tend to suggest Dillan can provide superior care.

Section 598.41(3)'s factors guide the physical-care analysis in a chapter 600B custody case.

Smart v. Ralls · filed 2025-07-23(3)

To guide our analysis, we look to the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those discussed in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974). ... Like the district court, we find joint physical care is both workable and in the son’s best interest.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide the choice of a physical-care arrangement in the children’s best interests.

Marchesano v. Dillon · filed 2025-08-06(3)

In determining which physical-care arrangement is in the children’s best interests, we are guided by the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2023) and the four factors set out in Hansen: ... Having considered the factors guiding our physical-care analysis, we are not persuaded by Matthew’s argument that he “is on equal footing as Taria.” We agree with the district court’s determination that joint physical care is not in the best interests of the children under the circumstances and affirm the court’s order placing physical care with Taria.

Section 598.41(3) guides physical-care decisions through custody factors, including the parents’ ability to communicate and support the child’s relationship with each other.

Wrage v. Torres · filed 2026-01-28(3)

“We are guided by the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) as well as those identified in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).” Id.; see also Iowa Code § 600B.40 (2024) (applying the section 598.41(3) factors to custody arrangements for a child born out of wedlock). ... We find that Clint is the parent who can better communicate and show respect and thus will support Nayeli’s relationship with the child going forward.

Section 598.41 sets out nonexclusive factors relevant to physical care determinations.

In re the Marriage of Bonham · filed 2026-04-15

Iowa Code section 598.41 (2025) sets forth a series of nonexclusive factors that are relevant in physical care determinations.

Section 598.41(5)(a) normally requires specific findings explaining a denial of requested joint physical care, but no findings are required if the parent abandons the request at trial.

In Re Marriage of Fennelly & Breckenfelder · filed 2007-07-20(5)(a)

Because the court did not award joint physical care, it normally would be required to specifically explain why joint physical care is not in the children’s best interest. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a). However, no specific finding was required in the present case because Ted abandoned his request for joint physical care during the trial.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires a court to consider joint physical care when requested and to explain its reasons for rejecting that option.

In Re the Marriage of Brittni Heitman and Andrew Heitman Upon the Petition of Brittni Heitman, and Concerning Andrew Hei · filed 2016-02-24(5)(a)

Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a) simply makes an award of joint physical care an option that must be considered if requested, and the court must address any reasons for rejecting the option in its ruling.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why joint physical care is not in the children’s best interests when a court denies a parent’s request for it.

In Re the Marriage of Sara Rose Crandall and Jonathan Christian Crandall Upon the Petition of Sara Rose Crandall, N/K/A · filed 2016-09-14(5)(a)

When the court denies a parent’s request for joint physical care, its denial must be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining why shared care is not in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires a specific finding that joint physical care is not in the child’s best interest when a court denies a parent’s request for joint physical care.

Hensch v. Mysak · filed 2017-09-13(5)(a)

It does, however, require a specific finding that joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

When a court denies a request for joint physical care, section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings explaining why joint physical care is not in the children’s best interests; reasons for choosing one parent as primary caregiver do not alone satisfy that requirement.

In re Marriage of Walker · filed 2018-02-07(5)(a)

When the court denies a parent’s request for joint physical care, that denial “shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a). The district court here listed several reasons why it believed Ryan, rather than Amber, deserved to be the children’s primary caregiver. But the district court did not address why joint physical care would not serve the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(a) permits joint physical care when either parent requests it and requires specific findings that joint physical care is not in the child’s best interest if the request is denied.

In re the Marriage of Brockman · filed 2019-12-18(5)(a)

If the court grants joint legal custody of a child, the court may award joint physical care if either parent requests it. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2017). “If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.” Id.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that joint physical care is not in the child’s best interest before a court can deny joint physical care.

In re the Marriage of Pazhoor · filed 2021-01-21(5)(a)

In order to find otherwise, we would be required to make “specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a). This we cannot do on the record in this case.

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires sound reasons for denying a request for joint physical care.

In re the Marriage of Keller · filed 2021-09-22(5)(a)

More importantly for Mark, the district court did not provide sound reasons under Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(a) for denying his request for joint physical care of M.A.K.

When a court denies joint physical care, section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that joint physical care is not in the children’s best interest.

In re the Marriage of Heiar · filed 2020-10-21(5)(a)

If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of 10 fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the children. Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2018).

Section 598.41(5)(a) requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when a court denies a parent’s request for joint physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Thomas A. Heifner and Jessica L. Heifner Upon the Petition of Thomas A. Heifner, and Concerning Jessica L. Heifner N/K/A Jessica L. O'donnell · filed 2016-06-29(5)(a)

When the court denies a parent’s request for joint physical care, that denial “shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding ... of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a).

Section 598.41 makes a child’s ability to maintain maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with the noncustodial parent part of the child’s best interests in custody decisions.

In Re the Marriage of Gratias · filed 1987-03-31

We are bound, however, to safeguard the best interests of the child which include the child's ability to maintain maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with the noncustodial parent. E.g., Iowa Code § 598.41 (1985).

Section 598.41 makes a parent’s support for the children’s relationship and continuing physical and emotional contact with the other parent relevant to a custody decision.

In Re the Marriage of Clifford · filed 1994-02-25

Despite her testimony to the contrary, we believe Kathy has not supported the children’s relationship with their father or assured the children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with their father.

Section 598.41(3) calls for liberal visitation, where appropriate, to maximize children’s continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

Petition of Deierling · filed 1988-01-27(3)

In determining custody the court should include liberal visitation, where appropriate, in order to afford the children the opportunity to maximize the continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

Section 598.41(1) favors liberal visitation while allowing alternating weekends so the parent with primary physical custody also has weekend time with the children.

In Re the Marriage of Lacaeyse · filed 1990-08-30(1)

Liberal visitation rights are in the best interest of the children. ... Since Dean has primary physical custody of the boys, he is entitled to enjoy weekend time with them. ... We therefore modify the decree to award Jacqueline visitation with the boys every other weekend from 4:00 on Friday to 7:00 on Sunday.

Section 598.41(1) calls for liberal visitation where appropriate to maximize a child’s continuing contact with both parents; the child’s age of two alone does not limit visitation to daytime hours.

In Re the Marriage of Kerber · filed 1988-09-28(1)

The court shall order liberal visitation rights, where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents. Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1987). ... We do not believe that the child’s age of two alone is a factor that limits parental visitation to daytime hours.

Section 598.41(1) does not require giving the noncustodial parent at least half of the available time; visitation must serve the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Bunch · filed 1990-07-26(1)

We cannot say as a matter of law that sections 598.41(1) and 598.1(6) require the court to apportion at least one-half of available time to the noncustodial parent.

Section 598.41(1) permits conditions on a parent’s visitation only when unrestricted visitation is likely to cause direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to a child or parent, and any conditions must serve the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Rykhoek · filed 1994-09-16(1)

From these cases, we conclude a court should place conditions on a parent's visitation rights only when visitation without the placement of conditions is likely to result in direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1993). Any conditions which are so imposed must be in the best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(1) guides courts to set visitation so children have the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with the noncustodial parent.

In Re the Marriage of Krone · filed 1995-02-28(1)

In determining the appropriate amount of visitation, we are guided by the principle a court should order such visitation ... as will ensure a child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with the noncustodial parent. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1993).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for visitation that gives children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents, while the children’s best interests govern the schedule.

In Re the Marriage of Kari L. Franzen and Joshua J. Franzen Upon the Petition of Kari L. Franzen, and Concerning Joshua · filed 2014-04-16(1)(a)

We note the visitation schedule ordered by a court should provide the children “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2011). The thirty days of summertime visitation ordered by the court was in addition to Joshua’s regular overnight visitation of every Thursday and every other weekend. The court also provided that both parties were entitled to seven consecutive uninterrupted overnights during the summer. We conclude this schedule does provide for both parents to have maximum time with the children in the summer, and we conclude it is not in the best interest of the children, especially considering their young age, to grant Joshua’s request for twelve consecutive uninterrupted nights during the summer.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires a visitation schedule to serve the child’s best interests and assure maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Kristopher Daniel Fix and Mallory Bucher Fix Upon the Petition of Kristopher Daniel Fix, and Conce · filed 2014-05-29(1)(a)

A visitation schedule must be in the best interests of a child and “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2011).

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs custody decisions to preserve a child’s maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when reasonable and in the child’s best interest.

In Re the Marriage of Kurt Rothfus and Katherine Rothfus Upon the Petition of Kurt Rothfus, and Concerning Katherine Rot · filed 2014-06-25(1)(a)

Custody decisions should assure a child of divorce the “maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents” insofar as is reasonable and in the child’s best interest. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). In this case, the decree’s grant of physical care to Kurt—with traditional visitation to Kathy—significantly reduced J.R.’s continuing contact with Kathy.

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts, when reasonable and in the child’s best interests, to award custody that allows maximum continuing contact with both parents and to consider each parent’s willingness to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Upon the Petition of Karen Beth Squires, and Concerning Mark John Orton · filed 2014-07-30(1)(a)

Our statutes provide that insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, the court should order an award of custody which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact ...with both parents. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). The court should therefore consider whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires custody decisions to assure a child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Kelly Marie Vaughn and Andrew Joseph Vaughn Upon the Petition of Kelly Marie Vaughn, and Concernin · filed 2014-11-26(1)(a)

Custody decisions need to assure a child of divorce the “maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents” insofar as is reasonable and in the child’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2011).

Section 598.41(1)(a) makes maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents a goal in deciding physical care.

Ventura v. Zuazua · filed 2015-03-25(1)(a)

The goal is to assure the child “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated . . .” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for visitation that assures maximum continuing contact with both parents, but the court may decline additional time when the circumstances show it would exacerbate the children’s stress.

In Re the Marriage of Rachel Hope Shum and Mathew Eugene Shum Upon the Petition of Rachel Hope Shum, N/K/A Rachel Hope S · filed 2015-06-10(1)(a)

Under section 598.41(1)(a), the court is to order visitation “which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents . . . .” Under the unique circumstances of this case, where Rachel exacerbated the stresses of both children to the point of losing control over the younger child, we conclude the district court acted equitably in declining to extend the visitation hours or grant additional summer visitation.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors visitation that allows both parents maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with their children when the court considers restrictions on visitation.

In Re the Marriage of Sara M. Nicola and Robert G. Nicola Upon the Petition of Sara M. Nicola, N/K/A Sara M. Stolley, an · filed 2016-03-09(1)(a)

In reaching our determination, the court bears in mind that the goal of visitation is to allow both parents “maximum continuing physical and emotional contact.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2015).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for visitation that gives children maximum continued physical and emotional contact with both parents, balanced against the practicalities of day-to-day life.

In Re the Marriage of Constance G. Pauscher and Curtis R. Pauscher Upon the Petition of Constance G. Pauscher, and Conce · filed 2016-09-14(1)(a)

When one party has been awarded physical care, the other parent should receive visitation that assures the children “the opportunity for the maximum continued physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). We must also balance the practicalities of day-to-day life.

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for liberal visitation where appropriate, guided by the children’s best interests.

Ryan v. Wright · filed 2015-10-28(1)(a)

Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) states a court should award “liberal visitation rights where appropriate.” When considering visitation rights, our primary consideration is the best interests of the children; moreover, liberal visitation is generally considered in their best interests. ... Upon our de novo review, we affirm the court’s visitation schedule. The record supports the conclusion that this schedule is in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors liberal visitation that maintains maximum continuing contact with both parents, but summer visitation may be reduced when it takes nearly all of the custodial parent’s summer vacation with the child.

Tadd Matthew Bergan, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant v. Miranda Hall, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee. · filed 2017-02-08(1)(a)

While the new custody arrangement will certainly be an adjustment for both parties, as well as for M.B., liberal summer visitation with Hall will allow M.B. to spend time with Hall necessary to allow for maximum continuing contact and to maintain the strong mother-child bond. We agree however, that eight weeks of visitation usurps nearly all of the child’s summer vacation. In fact, with eight weeks of visitation, it would be difficult for Bergan to exercise his two weeks of uninterrupted time with the child. Accordingly, we reduce Hall’s summer visitation to six weeks under the same terms otherwise imposed by the district court.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors visitation that gives children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents; a proposed reduction that only cuts contact without reducing parental exchanges does not serve the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Kyle D. Morrison and Cassie K. Morrison Upon the Petition of Kyle D. Morrison, and Concerning Cass · filed 2017-03-08(1)(a)

Cassie’s proposed modification would only work to deprive the children of maximum physical and emotional contact with Kyle and Kyle’s extended family.

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to award liberal visitation where appropriate to give children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents, subject to the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Christopher Lawrence Slayman and Cassandra Lynn Slayman Upon the Petition of Christopher Lawrence · filed 2017-05-17(1)(a)

The legislature has directed the courts to award “liberal visitation rights where appropriate” in order to “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... Upon our de novo review, we determine the visitation schedule fashioned by the district court is in the children’s best interests and we decline to tinker with the judgment call made by the district court.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires visitation for a parent without physical care that assures the child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Amanda Abd El Krim and Mohamed Khalil Amin Upon the Petition of Amanda Abd El Krim, and Concerning · filed 2017-06-07(1)(a)

After awarding physical care of the child to one parent, the district court is required by statute to allow the other parent visitation that assures the child “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Id. § 598.41(1)(a); see also Gensley, 777 N.W.2d at 717.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires custody orders to give children the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents; unjustified interference with that contact weighs in physical-care decisions.

In re the Marriage of Lesline · filed 2018-08-15(1)(a)

The Iowa Code requires the court to order custody to “assure the child[ren] the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2017). Denial by a parent of the opportunity to maximize the children’s continuing contact with the other parent without just cause is a significant factor in the court’s evaluation. Gensley, 777 N.W.2d at 714. Jimmy has demonstrated he will not aid Michelle in maximizing her continuing contact with the children. We affirm the district court’s order awarding Michelle physical care and Jimmy visitation.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors liberal visitation for a parent without physical care to maximize the child’s continuing contact with both parents.

In re the Marriage of Gifford · filed 2020-11-30(1)(a)

When the court grants physical care to one parent, it should provide liberal visitation to the other parent to “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.”

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors visitation that maximizes children’s continuing contact with a parent when reducing that contact has not been shown to serve their best interests.

In re the Marriage of Deery · filed 2020-12-16(1)(a)

Allowing John to keep his Thursday overnights with the children maximizes his available time with them. See In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (“[G]enerally, liberal visitation rights are in the children’s best interests.”); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to award liberal visitation where appropriate to give a child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

Pistek v. Karsjens · filed 2019-05-01(1)(a)

The legislature has directed the courts to award “liberal visitation rights where appropriate” in order to “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to order liberal visitation that maximizes a child’s continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when consistent with the child’s best interests.

Varner v. Conway · filed 2021-08-18(1)(a)

We conclude an overnight visit each week is in the best interests of the child and will aid in maximizing the emotional contact between Lauren and the child.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors liberal visitation that gives a child continuing contact with both parents when reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of O'Toole · filed 2019-10-09(1)(a)

Generally, liberal visitation rights serve a child’s best interests. ... Given the geographic proximity of the parents and Sean’s active albeit unequal involvement with the child during the divorce proceedings, we modify the visitation portion of the decree to extend the Tuesday evening visit to an overnight visit.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors reasonable visitation arrangements that serve the child’s best interests and maximize continuing contact with both parents.

Gehringer v. Bloom · filed 2020-10-21(1)(a)

Neither party has shown they can or will work together as necessary to abide by their agreement, allow the child’s extracurriculars, and maximize the child’s continuing contact with both sides of the family. Therefore, we find the district court’s modification of the 2017 decree was appropriate.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires a custody award to assure the child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

Dirks v. Eccles · filed 2020-04-29(1)(a)

Our law requires that a custody award will “assure the child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires a custody award to assure the child an opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents; when parents cannot agree on summer parenting time, a court may need to set a specific schedule.

Muntz v. Sayre · filed 2023-08-30(1)(a)

In crafting a custody order, the court “shall order the custody award . . . which will assure the child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... The district court acted unreasonably in denying the request given the dynamics of the parents in this case, and we reverse that portion of the ruling.

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors maximum continuing contact with both parents, but a court may restrict parenting time to Iowa when the children’s best interests warrant that restriction.

In re the Marriage of Sundby · filed 2022-03-30(1)(a)

Among the significant factors is to place the children where they have the “opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... Considering the record, it is the children’s best interest to initially impose this restriction.

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports liberal visitation, including a near-equal parenting schedule, when it serves the children’s best interests.

In re The Marriage of Drury · filed 2023-01-11(1)(a)

Contrary to Stephanie’s arguments on appeal, the district court’s reasoning is not in conflict with Iowa case law and is instead consistent with the statutory factors. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1).

Section 598.41(1)(a) presumes liberal visitation is in a child’s best interests and calls for maximum continuing contact with both parents when setting a visitation schedule.

In re Marriage of Ricklefs · filed 2023-03-08(1)(a)

We presume liberal visitation is in L.R.’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... Four non-consecutive weeks during the summer months provides Jonathan and L.R. maximum contact during the summer months while preserving Jenna’s own summer contact with the child.

Section 598.41(1)(a) generally favors liberal visitation with a noncustodial parent when the schedule serves the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Weltz · filed 2023-07-13(1)(a)

Generally, liberal visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a); In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). ... We determine the summer visitation schedule set out in the parties’ dissolution decree is in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a) generally favors liberal visitation with a noncustodial parent, but a narrower schedule is proper when it serves the children’s best interests.

In re Marriage of Godbolt · filed 2023-07-26(1)(a)

Generally, liberal visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a); In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). ... Based on the problems experienced by the children under the visitation provisions in the temporary order, we find the court properly created a visitation schedule in the dissolution decree that is in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a)’s directive to allow maximum contact with each parent is limited by what is reasonable and in the children’s best interests.

York v. Heikens · filed 2023-11-21(1)(a)

We understand Brian’s argument that “the children should not be deprived of the maximum opportunity for contact with each parent.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). But that statutory directive “is in the context of what ‘is reasonable and in the best interest of the child[ren].’” Petersen v. Keller, No. 11-1923, 2012 WL 3590731, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2012) (quoting Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a)). Here, we agree with the district court that joint physical care— which is all that Brian asks for on appeal—is not in the children’s best interests for the reasons detailed above.

Section 598.41(1) allows a court to impose conditions on visitation to prevent direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to a child.

In re Marriage of Kerby · filed 2023-05-10(1)

We have no doubt about the court’s authority to require it. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (2021) (allowing the placement 2 Shuana asks us to review the March 2021 order as well. She concedes it is an interim order but argues that, together, they constitute “two halves of a final decision.” We agree the March 2021 order informs the October 2021 order. But the order subject to review is the October 2021 order. Cf. In re Marriage of Denly, 590 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Iowa 1999) (stating “temporary custody orders should not be considered final judgments for purposes of appeal”). 9 of conditions on a parent’s visitation rights to prevent “direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child”); see also In re Marriage of Rykhoek, 525 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“Any conditions which are so imposed must be in the best interests of the child.”); In re Marriage of Makela, No. 22-0304, 2022 WL 16985441, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022) (stating testimony drawn from father’s history “supported the district court’s gradual implementation of a visitation plan”); Kettler v. Kettler, No. 21-0418, 2021 WL 4891086, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021) (concluding modifications of decree provisions regarding a parent’s “drug-testing” and “suspension of visitation” were “necessary to ensure the safety of the children”).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for liberal visitation that gives a child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when reasonable and in the child’s best interest.

In Re Marriage of Meester · filed 2026-01-07(1)(a)

On the issue of visitation, Tyrus asks us to modify the schedule if we affirm the district court’s physical care decision. He contends that “maximum contact” is in the child’s best interest, “and only two overnights out of every fourteen” is not enough. We agree that “liberal visitation rights,” which will provide the child with “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents,” should be ordered “insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). But we find the court’s visitation schedule achieves that goal.

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to grant liberal visitation when appropriate to maximize the child’s continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

Ryner v. Akers · filed 2024-10-30(1)(a)

The legislature has specifically instructed the courts to grant “liberal visitation rights where appropriate” to assure the child “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2023).

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports expanding parenting time when doing so gives a child more opportunity for physical and emotional contact with an active parent.

Smith v. Ragan · filed 2024-11-13(1)(a)

Ragan has been an active father, and T.R. will benefit from having the maximum opportunity to continue their physical and emotional contact. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). On this record, we agree with Ragan that the district court should have granted him more parenting time with T.R.

Section 598.41(1)(a) permits limiting summer parenting time when extended visitation would not be reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

Vastine v. Keough · filed 2026-05-13(1)(a)

Granting liberal visitation must be “reasonable and in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... True, the district court could have granted Stephanie more visitation during the summer, but it is not in L.V.’s best interests to have that extended time in her care. As discussed, Stephanie has not shown a complete appreciation of how her addiction affects her parenting. Given the lingering concerns, the district court established an appropriate parenting plan that balances L.V.’s best interests with reasonable contact with his mother.

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to assure children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when reasonable and in the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Elyse Schnitzler and John P. Schnitzler Upon the Petition of Elyse Schnitzler, and Concerning John · filed 2015-02-25(1)(a)

We start our analysis with the legislative directive that custody decisions need to assure children of divorce the “maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents” insofar as is reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1) favors continuing contact with both parents when it serves the child’s best interest.

In Re the Marriage of Chad Frasher and Jennifer Frasher Upon the Petition of Chad Frasher, and Concerning Jennifer Frash · filed 2015-06-24(1)

We defer to the district court’s factual determination regarding the parties’ ... practice on this point, and also believe allowing maximum continuing contact with both parents is in A.F.’s best interest. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1).

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors parenting time that gives a child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.

In re the Marriage of Price · filed 2025-02-05(1)(a)

As the district court reasoned, expanding Blair’s parenting time provides A.M.P. with “the opportunity for the maximum continuing ... physical and emotional contact with both parents” that the legislature expected in drafting Iowa Code chapter 598 (2022). In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d 705, 717 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (quoting identical Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2005)).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for a visitation schedule that maximizes parental contact and serves the children’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Dawn Leann Sheriff and James Alexander Sheriff Upon the Petition of Dawn Leann Sheriff, N/K/A Dawn · filed 2015-08-05(1)(a)

The district court’s objective is to craft a visitation schedule that maximizes parental contact and that is in the best interests of the children. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for visitation that gives a parent without physical care the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with the child.

Plants v. Kelderman · filed 2022-08-17(1)(a)

We recognize that, “[u]pon awarding one parent physical care, the district court shall award the other parent visitation that assures the children ‘the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.’” In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d 705, 717 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) ... (quoting Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a)). ... That being said, we change the parenting schedule as it pertains to after A.P. enrolls in kindergarten to add parenting time on a Friday or Monday that is adjacent to Cory’s weekend when A.P. does not have school.

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for liberal visitation, where appropriate, to give children maximum continuing contact with both parents; more parenting time is not required when it would unduly disrupt the children’s lives.

In re the Marriage of Harland · filed 2025-12-03(1)(a)

Courts must grant “liberal visitation rights where appropriate” to assure children have “the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional ... contact with both parents.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). But visitation should not be “unduly disruptive.” In re Marriage of Bevers, 326 N.W.2d 896, 899 (Iowa 1982). The current schedule provides ample contact between Andy and his sons while not unduly disrupting the boys’ lives. Andy admitted at trial that J.A.H. gets homesick during long visits and asks to call Alyssa. Given these circumstances, expanding Andy’s parenting time would not be in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1) allows reasonable visitation limits in the child's best interest despite its emphasis on maximum continuing contact with both parents.

In Re the Marriage of Hunt · filed 1991-08-27(1)

Clifford next argues that the district court’s order is not in accord with the language of Iowa Code section 598.41(1) emphasizing maximum physical and emotional contact between each parent and child. The district court found the visitation provisions of the decree to be inappropriate primarily in light of Wendi’s age and the distance between the households. ... We find the visitation provisions of the district court’s modification order to be reasonable, equitable and in Wendi’s best interest.

Section 598.41(1) does not permit limiting a parent’s summer visitation solely because of the child’s age.

In Re the Marriage of Drury · filed 1991-08-27(1)

A limitation on the number of days is no different than a limitation on the time of day. The child's age alone is not an appropriate consideration for limiting a parent’s summer visitation rights.

Section 598.41(1) calls for visitation that gives children maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when appropriate.

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

We find the restrictive nature of the decree’s visitation provisions fails to promote the goal espoused by section 598.-41(1). We, therefore, expand Jamie’s visitation rights to assure both MacKenzie and Jamie Lee the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with their father.

Section 598.41(1) permits restrictions on liberal visitation when direct physical harm or significant emotional harm is likely to result from contact.

In Re the Marriage of Gillilland · filed 1992-04-28(1)

We find James has failed to clearly show it is likely that direct physical harm or significant emotional harm would result to the children if Mary was allowed liberal visitation.