Iowa Code § 598.41

Section 598.41’s preference for maximum contact with both parents is a relevant factor in a child’s best-interest analysis, but maximum visitation is inappropriate when it is not in the child’s best interest.

Callender v. Skiles · filed 2001-03-21(1)(a)

We believe the presumption in section 598.41 is a relevant factor among many for determining what is in a child’s best interest. Clearly, if such a preference is not within a child’s best interest, it would be inappropriate to grant maximum visitation.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires a default visitation schedule to provide the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents, even when the parents may agree to more visitation.

Diers v. Coffman · filed 2016-04-27(1)(a)

Although the parties have the discretion to increase the amount of visitation between Jarrod and the child, we conclude the default visitation schedule provided in the decree does not provide the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents, as required by Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a).

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

O'brien v. Wygle · filed 2014-04-30(1)(a)

Although section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to reach a custody determination with liberal visitation that “will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents,” that directive is in the context of what “is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.”

Section 598.41(1) favors liberal visitation that gives a child maximum continuing contact with both parents; granting that visitation does not, by itself, justify taking physical care from the parent who granted it.

In Re the Marriage of Mark E. Brus and Areli Brus Upon the Petition of Mark E. Brus, and Concerning Areli Brus · filed 2015-08-05(1)

The original decree gave the parties the ability to work together to “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” ... Mark should not now be ... punished by losing physical care of his child for granting Areli very liberal visitation with K.B. in accord with the stipulated decree.

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to provide liberal visitation that allows maximum continuing contact with both parents when reasonable and in the child’s best interest.

Fred K. Agyepong-Yeboah, plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. Anna Roeder, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant. · filed 2015-11-25(1)(a)

Although section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to reach a custody determination with liberal visitation that “will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents,” that directive is in the context of what “is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.”

Section 598.41(1)(a) supports a visitation schedule based on the children’s best interests, including their need for consistent time with a parent and a stable routine.

In Re the Marriage of Scott Michael Taylor and Michele R. Taylor, Upon the Petition of Scott Michael Taylor, and Concern · filed 2015-08-19(1)(a)

But even when we consider the parents’ close geographic proximity in our de novo review, we believe the visitation schedule set by the district court is in the children’s best interests. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). The schedule allows the children the certainty of a consistent and increased amount of time with Michele.

Section 598.41(1)(a) calls for liberal visitation that allows maximum continuing contact with both parents, to the extent reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

Susie v. Tejeda · filed 2015-09-23(1)(a)

Although section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to reach a custody determination with liberal visitation that “will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents,” that directive is in the context of what “is reasonable and in the best interest of the child.”

Section 598.41(1)(a) favors liberal parenting time that allows maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents when consistent with the child’s best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Tiffany Lane Schultzen and Brad James Schultzen Upon the Petition of Tiffany Lane Schultzen, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Brad James Schultzen, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee. · filed 2016-05-25(1)(a)

The district court’s grant of liberal parenting time to Brad is consistent with the statutory preference for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents and is not contrary to B.S.’s best interests.

A child’s stated preference is a factor in determining custody arrangements, but it is not controlling.

In Re the Marriage of Erickson · filed 1992-08-27(3)(f)

The child’s stated preference is a factor to be considered by the court in determining custody arrangements; however, it is not controlling.

A child’s stated preference is a factor in determining custody, but it does not control the decision.

In Re the Marriage of Levsen · filed 1993-11-29(3)(c)

A child’s stated preference, while not controlling, is a factor to be considered by the court in determining custody arrangements.

Section 598.41(3) treats a child’s preference about custodial placement as one factor in the custody decision, not a controlling choice.

In Re the Marriage of Harris · filed 1995-02-28(3)

Even if Nancy is correct and the children do desire to be placed with her, this is only a single factor to be considered. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (1993).

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts to consider a child’s wishes in a custody determination in light of the child’s age and maturity; a mature sixteen-year-old’s preference may receive significant weight.

In Re the Marriage of Bugg · filed 1992-09-29(3)(f)

In considering what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests, the court shall consider the the child’s wishes, taking into account the child’s age and maturity. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (1991). At the time of trial, Ryan was a sixteen-year-old teenager, holding a part-time job and with a driver’s license. Ryan testified he did not feel pressured into this decision by either parent. Accordingly, we believe Ryan is of sufficient age and maturity to give significant weight to his preference to live with his father.

Section 598.41(2) treats an infant child’s name as part of the child’s legal status and gives a dissolution court authority to decide the child’s name.

In Re the Marriage of Gulsvig · filed 1993-06-11(2)

When we examine our custody statute, Iowa Code section 598.41, we believe that authority to change a child's name may be inferred. Section 598.41 provides the court with broad discretion in determining custody and the physical care of a child and expresses a preference for joint custody. Each custodian has equal participation in decisions affecting "the child's legal status." Iowa Code § 598.41(2). We believe an infant child's name is an incident of the child's "legal status." Accordingly, we hold the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction in this respect.

Section 598.41 gives a noncustodial parent access to a minor child’s law enforcement records despite the confidentiality of juvenile records.

In Re the Marriage of Maher · filed 1993-11-29

We conclude a noncustodial parent has a right to access to information concerning his or her minor child’s law enforcement records. We therefore find the duty to keep the juvenile law enforcement records confidential does not exclude either parent’s access.

Section 598.41 gives weight to a child's preference for a primary caregiver according to the child's age, maturity, and strength of preference.

In Re The Marriage Of Brandon J. Powers And Heather R. Powers Upon The Petition Of Brandon J. Powers Vs. And Concerning · filed 2008-05-16(3)

In addition, the law gives weight to a preference expressed by a child for one parent to be the primary caregiver over the other parent, depending on the age, maturity, and strength of the preference of the child. Iowa Code § 598.41.

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s wishes a relevant but noncontrolling factor in deciding physical care, with the child’s age and maturity taken into account.

McKee v. Dicus · filed 2010-05-26(3)(f)

In determining what physical custody arrangement is in the best interests of a child, one of the factors the court shall consider is “whether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f).

Section 598.41(3)(f) allows a child’s preference to be considered as one factor in deciding the child’s best interests, taking the child’s age and maturity into account.

In Re the Marriage of Nichole Leigh Severson and Russell Neil Severson II Upon the Petition of Nichole Leigh Severson, a · filed 2014-03-12(3)(f)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(f) (2011), provides the court with the ability to consider a child’s preference as one factor in making a determination of which care arrangement is in the child’s best interests. The court is to consider the child’s age and maturity level in considering the child’s preference.

A child’s custody preference is relevant but not controlling, and it receives less weight in a modification proceeding than in an original custody decision.

In Re the Marriage of Neil James Prussman and Karen M. Prussman Upon the Petition of Neil James Prussman, and Concerning · filed 2015-05-06(3)(f)

However, a minor child’s preference as to which parent he wishes to live with, although not controlling, is relevant and cannot be ignored. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (2013) (“Whether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child's age and maturity.”).

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s preference a relevant but nonconclusive custody factor, considered in light of the child’s age and maturity.

In Re the Marriage of Brandee Brecht Lindemier and David Roy Lindemier Upon the Petition of Brandee Brecht Lindemier N/K · filed 2015-05-06(3)(f)

It is true the preference of a child is a relevant but non-conclusive factor in custody determinations. See In re Marriage of Ellerbroek, 377 N.W.2d 257, 258 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (permitting consideration of a child’s wishes regarding a custodial 11 arrangement, taking into account the child’s age and maturity).

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s wishes relevant to physical care decisions, with the child’s age and maturity taken into account.

Amended September 28, 2015 In RE the Marriage of Tracy Lynn Hoffman and Ernst Franklin Hoffman, Upon the Petition of Tra · filed 2015-05-08(3)(f)

The court considers a child’s wishes on this question, taking into account the child’s age and maturity.

Section 598.41(3)(f) allows a court to consider a child’s custody preference when the child is sufficiently old and mature.

In Re the Marriage of Lori Ann Reinking and Jeffrey Bernard Reinking Upon the Petition of Lori Ann Reinking, N/K/A Lori · filed 2016-06-15(3)(f)

J.R. is of sufficient age and maturity for the court to consider his preference. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (2013).

Section 598.41(3)(f) directs courts to consider a child’s wishes, taking account of the child’s age and maturity, when deciding physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Tracy Lynn Hoffman and Ernst Franklin Hoffman, Upon the Petition of Tracy Lynn Hoffman · filed 2015-05-08(3)(f)

The court considers a child’s wishes on this question, taking into account the child’s age and maturity.

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts deciding physical care to consider the children’s preferences, but those preferences do not control the decision.

In Re the Marriage of Dean Alan Ritchison and Wendy Jo Ritchison Upon the Petition of Dean Alan Ritchison, and Concernin · filed 2017-01-25(3)(f)

In making the physical-care determination, we consider the preferences of the children, but they are not controlling. See McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 738 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (2015).

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child's wishes relevant to physical-care decisions, with the weight given to those wishes depending on the child's age and maturity.

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

We give weight to the statements and preferences of these two teenagers because of their age and both appear by their testimony to be mature, intelligent, and have provided a reasonable explanation for their opinion.

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s preference a factor in a physical-care decision, weighed in light of the child’s age, the strength of the preference, family relationships, and the reasons given.

Wolff v. Mindy Ann Wilson n/k/a Mindy Ann Ennis · filed 2020-11-30(3)(f)

But when making the physical-care determination, we consider these factors: “(1) the child’s age and educational level, (2) the strength of the child’s preference, (3) the child’s relationship with family members, and (4) the reasons the child gives for [her] decision.” See McKee v. Dicus, 785 N.W.2d 733, 738 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010); see also Iowa Code §§ 598.41(3)(f), 600B.40 (2019). After considering these factors, we afford weight to the child’s preference.

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires consideration of a child’s wishes in custody decisions, but those wishes do not control and receive less weight in a modification proceeding than in an original custody proceeding.

In re the Marriage of McClenathan · filed 2022-02-16(3)(f)

In determining custody, the court considers “the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition” to the arrangement. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (2020). A child’s wishes are not controlling, and we give them less weight in a modification action than would be given in an original custody proceeding.

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts to consider whether a custody arrangement accords with a child’s wishes in light of the child’s age and maturity.

In re the Marriage of Routt · filed 2023-08-30(3)(f)

True, courts must consider whether a custody arrangement is in accord with a child’s wishes, considering the child’s age and maturity. Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f). In our de novo review, we find that the decree appropriately addresses A.R.’s wishes by providing Ricky with a more robust visitation schedule.

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts to consider a child’s preference in a custody decision, but the preference is not controlling.

In re Marriage of Waller and Kill · filed 2025-05-07(3)(f)

As to the children’s preferences, that is a factor the district court and we are to consider. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f). But the children’s preferences are not controlling. See In re Marriage of Burham, 283 N.W.2d 269, 276 (Iowa 1979).

Children’s preferences are considered in custody decisions, but other interests, including their grades and mental and emotional wellbeing, may outweigh those preferences.

In re the Marriage of Melcher · filed 2026-02-25(3)(f)

Adam also argues the district court erred by not adequately considering the older children’s wishes. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f ). ... The district court specifically acknowledged the children’s preferences and placed them in an appropriate context—including concerns about their grades and mental and emotional wellbeing. We discern no error. And on our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s overall conclusion.

Section 598.41(3)(f) allows a court deciding physical care to consider older children's expressed opposition to living with a parent.

In Re Marriage of Smiley · filed 1994-06-22(3)(f)

Moreover, Travis and Dustin—now nearly adults—have expressed and testified to their strong opposition to Debra's continued physical care of them. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f).

Section 598.41 permits a court to determine a child’s surname in a custody proceeding, but a later request after parental rights have been adjudicated is a name change governed by chapter 674.

Braunschweig v. Fahrenkrog · filed 2009-10-16

The court, therefore, may change a child’s name pursuant to custody determinations under this section. ... Where a father brings an action to establish paternity and adjudicate his parental rights, the time and place to contest the child’s surname is when the new or amended birth certificate is created. Anything after that time is a name change and governed under chapter 674.

Section 598.41(3)(f) permits a court to consider a child’s wishes about physical care after taking the child’s age and maturity into account.

In Re the Marriage of Marcus Eugene Russell and Angel Marie Russell Upon the Petition of Marcus Eugene Russell, and Conc · filed 2016-08-17(3)(f)

A child’s preference is a relevant but non-conclusive factor in physical-care determinations. In re Marriage of Ellerbroek, 377 N.W.2d 257, 258 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (2015) (permitting consideration of a child’s wishes regarding a physical-care arrangement after ... taking into account the child’s age and maturity). At the time of the modification trial, E.R. was thirteen years old. We find E.R. was of sufficient age and maturity level that we give weight to his desire to live with Marc.

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts to weigh a child’s wishes or strong opposition to a custody arrangement in light of the child’s age and maturity.

In re the Marriage of Barche · filed 2023-05-10(3)(f)

Contrary to Edyta’s suggestion, we must weigh the children’s wishes. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(f) (requiring the court to consider “[w]hether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s ... wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity”).

Section 598.41(3)(f) requires courts to consider a child’s custody wishes in light of the child’s age and maturity; the child’s preference may receive substantial weight without controlling the custody decision.

In Re the Marriage of Ellerbroek · filed 1985-09-24(3)(f)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(f) provides that in considering what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the minor child, the court shall consider whether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity. ... After analyzing these factors, we agree with Wade that substantial weight should be given to James’ preference and in our de novo review we have done so.

Section 598.41(6) favors custody with the surviving parent after the custodial parent dies, unless that award is contrary to the child’s best interests; seven years without contact or support can forfeit the parental preference.

Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Collins · filed 1986-06-04(6)

Iowa Code section 598.41(6) (1985) provides that: When the parent awarded custody or physical care of the child cannot act as custodian or caretaker because the parent has died or has been judicially adjudged incompetent, the court shall award custody including physical care of the child to the surviving parent unless the court finds that such an award is not in the child’s best interests. ... We find that a parent who has no contact with his child and provides no child support for seven years has forfeited the benefit of any presumption of parental preference as to child custody.

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s wishes a custody factor, but the child’s preference receives less weight in a modification proceeding than in an original custody proceeding.

In Re the Marriage of Behn · filed 1987-09-30(3)(f)

Lori’s preference is entitled to less weight in this modification action than it would be given in the original custody proceedings.

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child's custody preference relevant but not controlling; courts cannot ignore it.

In Re the Marriage of Pettit · filed 1992-10-27(3)(f)

The preferences of minor children, while not controlling, are relevant and cannot be ignored in a child custody case.

Section 598.41(3)(f) makes a child’s wishes or strong opposition a custody factor, taking the child’s age and maturity into account.

In the Interest of M.M. and M.M., Minor Children · filed 2025-01-23(3)(f)

And finally, the older child—who was on the verge of turning fifteen at the time of the hearing—expressed a preference for being in her father’s custody and care and strong opposition to being placed back in her mother’s custody and care. See id. § 598.41(3)(f) (listing as a factor “[w]hether the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes or whether the child has strong opposition, taking into consideration the child’s age and maturity”).

Section 598.41(3)(i) permits courts to consider domestic violence in custody decisions when evidence of harm to the child is presented at trial.

In Re the Marriage of Brainard · filed 1994-08-25(3)(i)

We recognize "the safety of the child” is a statutory factor to consider in awarding joint custody under Iowa Code Section 598.41(3)(i) (1993). This statute permits Iowa courts to consider domestic violence as a factor in deciding custody when evidence of harm to the child is presented at trial.

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when there is a history of domestic abuse; abuse does not automatically preclude joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Ford · filed 1997-05-21(1)(b)

Because the operation of section 598.41(l)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption, however, our next consideration is whether this presumption is sufficient to preclude the awarding of joint custody. Any evidence of domestic abuse does not, as Sonia contends it does, automatically and as a matter of law preclude joint custody.

A history of domestic abuse under section 598.41(1)(b) is not automatically established by one documented incident or by multiple minor incidents; courts weigh the abuse’s nature, severity, repetition, and target.

In Re the Marriage of Forbes · filed 1997-11-26(1)(b)

In interpreting what is sufficient to constitute a “history of domestic abuse,” we find that a “history” is not necessarily established by a single documented incident, as claimed by Hannah. Nor does more than one minor incident automatically establish a “history of domestic abuse.” ... It is for the court to weigh the evidence of domestic abuse, its nature, severity, repetition, and to whom directed, not just to be a counter of numbers.

Section 598.41 makes domestic abuse a factor in deciding which parent should have custody.

In Re the Marriage of Barry · filed 1998-11-30

Pursuant to Iowa Code section 598.41 and prior ease law, domestic abuse is a factor in determining the custodial parent.

Section 598.41(3)(j) makes a history of domestic abuse a factor in physical-care awards; courts weigh the abuse’s nature, severity, repetition, and target rather than just counting incidents.

Sivertsen v. Ells · filed 2014-10-15(3)(j)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013) sets forth several factors for the court to consider in making an award of physical care, including whether a history of domestic abuse exists. ... Although evidence of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against an award of custody, see In re Marriage of Ford, 563 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Iowa 1997), it is for the court to weigh the evidence of domestic abuse, its nature, severity, repetition, and to whom directed, not just to be a counter of numbers.

Section 598.41 requires the court to assess an alleged history of domestic abuse by weighing the abuse’s nature, severity, repetition, and target, rather than merely counting incidents.

In Re the Marriage of Kyle Lou Ricke and Jill Dionne Ricke Upon the Petition of Kyle Lou Ricke, and Concerning Jill Dion · filed 2015-01-14(3)(j)

Although evidence of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against an award of custody, see In re Marriage of Ford, 563 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Iowa 1997), it is for the court to weigh the evidence of domestic abuse, its nature, severity, repetition, and to whom directed, not just to be a counter of numbers. Forbes, 570 N.W.2d at 760. ... Upon our de novo consideration of the evidence presented on this issue, we conclude there was not a history of domestic abuse between the parties.

Section 598.41(2)(c) makes an unrebutted history of domestic abuse outweigh other custody factors; courts weigh the nature, severity, and repetition of the abuse.

Stieneke v. Beaux Sargent · filed 2016-05-11(2)(c)

Like the district court, we place weight on the history of domestic violence between the parties. ... A “finding by the court that a history of domestic abuse exists, as specified in subsection 3, paragraph ‘j’, which is not rebutted, shall outweigh consideration of any other factor specified in subsection 3 in the determination of the awarding of custody under this subsection.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(c). ... Although evidence of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against an award of joint custody, see In re Marriage of Ford, 563 N.W.2d 629, 632 (Iowa 1997), it is for the court to weigh the evidence of domestic abuse, its nature, severity, repetition, and to whom directed, not just to be a counter of numbers.

A past threat leading to a protective order does not necessarily establish a history of domestic violence under section 598.41(3)(j).

Dean v. Lara Winter Bartusek · filed 2016-06-29(3)(j)

But we do not find his actions rise to the level of a “history” of domestic violence under section 598.41(3)(j).

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when there is a history of domestic abuse, which other statutory best-interest factors may overcome.

Fortner v. Howe · filed 2016-08-17(1)(b)

Under the Ford case, the district court is to analyze whether other factors within section 598.41 establish that it is in the best interest of the child that joint custody be awarded—thus rebutting the domestic abuse presumption.

Section 598.41(1) and (3)(j) require weighing the nature, severity, repetition, and target of alleged domestic abuse; a single incident does not necessarily establish a history of domestic abuse.

McRill v. Needham-Delorenzo · filed 2016-10-12(1), (3)(j)

We reject Ryan’s argument he proved Raelene had a history of domestic abuse that should serve to preclude Raelene from having physical care of the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1), (3)(j). ... Regardless, even accepting the underlying facts as true, we conclude this single incident does not amount to a “history of domestic abuse” within the meaning of the statute.

In deciding physical care, a claimed history of domestic abuse does not weigh in a parent’s favor when the court finds the claim unsupported by the evidence.

Upon the Petition of Cory Wane Fees, and Concerning Amanda Leigh Cook · filed 2016-10-26(3)(j)

Amanda failed to produce any documented evidence of even a single incident of domestic abuse perpetrated against her by Cory other than the protective order the parties entered into by consent, in which the court did not find Cory had committed a domestic abuse assault against Amanda. ... Thus, we do not find this factor weighs in favor of placing the children in Amanda’s physical care.

Section 598.41(3)(j) makes a history of domestic abuse a child custody factor, weighed by its nature, severity, repetition, and the person it was directed toward.

In Re the Marriage of Lita Elaine Viers and William G. Viers, Jr. Upon the Petition of Lita Elaine Viers N/K/A Lita Elai · filed 2017-07-19(3)(j)

The legislature has listed a history of domestic abuse as one of the factors the court is to consider in determining child custody. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(j) (2015). In weighing such evidence, we consider the nature of the abuse, its severity, its repetition, and to whom the abuse was directed.

An unrebutted history of domestic abuse outweighs every other factor in deciding joint legal custody.

In Re the Marriage of George Thomas Davis III and Lizeth Marie Barcelo Aviles Upon the Petition of George Thomas Davis I · filed 2017-10-11(2)(c)

Without credible testimony to rebut the presumption of a history of domestic abuse, this factor “outweigh[ed] the consideration of any other factor” in the custody determination.

Section 598.41(3)(j) makes domestic abuse a relevant factor in determining physical care.

Schoonover v. Coulter · filed 2019-08-07(3)(j)

Third, her testimony that Schoonover domestically abused her several times was uncontradicted and is a relevant factor in the physical care determination. See id. § 598.41(3)(j).

A finding of a history of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding joint custody.

In re the Marriage of Krug · filed 2020-09-02(1)(b)

Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(b) (2018) provides “a rebuttable presumption against the awarding of joint custody” if “the court finds a history of domestic abuse exists.”

Section 598.41(3)(j) permits a finding of a history of domestic abuse without evidence of a protective order or law enforcement involvement, though that evidence can support otherwise unsubstantiated claims.

Gage Steven Shellady v. Glover · filed 2022-03-30(3)(j)

While a history of domestic abuse can be found in the absence of such evidence, such evidence would be helpful to bolster the mother’s otherwise unsubstantiated claims that did not convince the district court.

Section 598.41(1)(d) excludes a domestic abuse victim’s relocation due to fear of abuse from the factors weighed against that parent in a physical care decision.

In re the Marriage of Finley · filed 2023-03-29(1)(d)

Given the district court’s finding of “an established history of domestic abuse by Derek against Megan,” her relocation is not a factor in the physical care decision.

Section 598.41(3)(j) requires courts deciding physical care to consider a parent’s history of domestic abuse, including a civil domestic abuse protective order.

In re the Marriage of Gast and Sullivan · filed 2024-01-24(3)(j)

It avoids potential negative influences on their daughter’s development from Gast’s drug use, anger, and violence. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(i) (factoring in the “safety of the child”); id. § 598.41(3)(j) (requiring consideration of “a history of domestic abuse,” including the issuance of a civil domestic abuse protective order).

Any section 598.41(1)(b) domestic abuse presumption applicable to physical care can be rebutted by mutual abuse and recent cooperation in parenting.

In re the Marriage of Wieland · filed 2022-12-21(1)(b)

Like the district court, we find that even if the rebuttable presumption created by a finding a history of domestic abuse applies to the physical-care determination, here the presumption was rebutted.

A history of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody under section 598.41(1)(b), but the presumption can be overcome.

Cabrera III v. Linxwiler · filed 2022-04-13(1)(b)

Even when there is a history of domestic abuse, however, we must determine if the presumption against joint legal custody is overcome. We think that presumption is overcome here.

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when there is a history of domestic abuse; the presumption can be overcome even if that history is established.

In re the Marriage of Engelman · filed 2022-06-15(1)(b)

Moreover, we also conclude that “even if we did find a history of domestic abuse existed in this case, the presumption created by section 598.41(1)(b) against awarding joint custody has been rebutted.”

Even if the domestic-abuse presumption in § 598.41(1)(b) applies to physical care, it can be rebutted when both parents have committed domestic abuse against each other.

Worth v. Geinitz · filed 2024-05-22(1)(b)

To the extent Macy is arguing the rebuttable presumption established by Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(b) upon a finding of domestic abuse applies to the physical-care determination rather than the legal-custody determination, we find the presumption rebutted here.

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when a history of domestic abuse exists, which the parent seeking joint custody must overcome.

In re Marriage of Viers · filed 2025-02-05(1)(b)

While the district court’s phraseology could have perhaps been better, we think the decree soundly captures the court’s finding that Shawn did not overcome the rebuttable presumption established by the General Assembly in Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(b).

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody when the court finds a history of domestic abuse.

In re Marriage of Nimrick · filed 2025-07-02(1)(b)

We discern no error in the court’s application of the rebuttable presumption against joint custody after a finding of domestic violence. See id. § 598.41(1)(b). The district court correctly granted Stephanie sole legal custody.

Section 598.41(1)(b) applies the rebuttable presumption against joint custody to legal custody determinations only.

Javonte Devar Hines Miller v. Teter · filed 2025-10-29(1)(b)

But this argument ignores the fact that section 598.41(1)(b) only applies to legal custody determinations, and Ashlea did not seek modification of the decree’s provisions granting the parties joint legal custody.

Section 598.41(3)(j) allows a court to consider a parent’s broader history of domestic abuse when deciding physical care, even if the parent was acquitted of one incident.

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

David notes that he was acquitted of the March incident, but we consider the history of ... violence more broadly. See id. § 598.41(3)(j). ... Like the district court, we find this factor weighs in favor of Cheyenne retaining physical care.

Section 598.41(3) permits courts to consider prior domestic violence when deciding custody even if it does not trigger the presumption against joint custody.

In re the Marriage of Wang and Ye · filed 2025-03-05(3)

But even without the rebuttable presumption, we may still consider prior violence when allocating custody. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a) ... (considering “[w]hether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child”), (i) (considering “[w]hether the safety of the child, other children, or the other parent will be jeopardized by the awarding of joint custody”).

Section 598.41(3)(j) requires the court to consider whether the record establishes a history of domestic abuse when deciding custody.

In Re the Marriage of Terrence J. Williams and Tammy M. Williams Upon the Petition of Terrence J. Williams, and Concerning Tammy M. Williams · filed 2017-07-06(3)(j)

But the record does not support a finding Terrence had engaged in a “history of domestic abuse” against Tammy as contemplated by Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(j).

In applying subsection (3)’s custody factors, nonconsensual drugging of one parent by the other is domestic abuse that weighs significantly against joint physical care.

Daniel Fred Goldsberry, Jr. v. Bond · filed 2023-04-26(3)

We are guided by 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 evaluating physical care generally. ... The act of drugging a significant other without consent is, in our view, a form of domestic abuse and a significant factor weighing against the offending significant other’s claim for joint physical care.

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint legal custody when there is a history of domestic abuse; the presumption does not apply to physical care determinations.

Javonte Devar Hines Miller v. Teter · filed 2026-05-15(1)(b)

Thus, the rebuttable presumption against joint legal custody under Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(b), if the court finds that a history of domestic abuse exists, does not apply to physical care determinations.

Section 598.41(1)(b) creates a presumption against joint legal custody when there is a history of domestic abuse; one episode does not necessarily establish such a history.

Birchard v. Martin · filed 2025-05-07(1)(b)

After our de novo review, we agree with these findings by the district court and find there is no history of domestic abuse that triggers any presumption on legal custody.

Section 598.41(3) identifies factors for determining the child’s best interests when deciding primary care.

In Re the Marriage of Ihle · filed 1998-02-25(3)

The governing consideration in deciding the issue of primary care in a dissolution of marriage is the best interests of the child. Our legislature has identified a host of factors to weigh in determining the best interests of the child in each particular case. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (1997).

Section 598.41(3) makes founded child abuse and the parents’ geographic distance relevant to whether shared legal custody serves the child’s best interests.

Upon the Petition of Tyson Geertz, and Concerning Robin Breuer, N/K/A Robin Reinier · filed 2014-06-25(3)

We conclude granting Robin sole legal custody is in D.B.’s best interests. The founded child abuse and geographic distance between the parents weighs heavily against continued shared legal custody. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(h), (j).

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for deciding which custodial arrangement serves a child’s best interests.

Upon the Petition of Kyle L. Drysdale, and Concerning Candice Abbott · filed 2014-10-15(3)

The Iowa Code provides a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining a custodial arrangement that is in the best interest of a child. Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2013); In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007).

Section 598.41(a) makes the children’s best interests the primary consideration in a custody determination.

In Re the Marriage of Matthew Morris and Allison Morris Upon the Petition of Matthew Morris, and Concerning Allison Morr · filed 2014-10-29(a)

In any custody determination, the primary consideration is the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(3) provides nonexclusive best-interest factors for physical care, including stability and continuity, parental communication and mutual respect, and agreement on routine care.

Upon the Petition of Brian Chisholm, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Amanda Dierksen, respondent-app · filed 2014-11-26(3)

A nonexclusive list of factors used to determine the “best interest of the child” is found in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), the primary factors are: stability and continuity, the degree of 5 communication and mutual respect between the parties, and the extent to the parties agree on matters involving routine care.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts deciding a custody arrangement in the children’s best interest to weigh factors including parental communication and each parent’s support for the other parent’s relationship with the children.

In Re the Marriage of Nathan Allen Logemann and Kersten Ashley Logemann Upon the Petition of Nathan Allen Logemann, and · filed 2015-01-28(3)

However, in considering what custody arrangement is in the best interest of the children, the court must weigh the factors set out under Iowa Code section 598.41(3). Relevant here are the questions of “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child[ren’s] needs” and “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child[ren].” See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c) and (e).

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for determining a child’s best interests in custody decisions.

In Re the Marriage of Stephania L. Rickels and Jason Lynn Rickels Upon the Petition of Stephania L. Rickels, and Concern · filed 2015-02-11(3)

A nonexclusive list of factors used to determine the “best interest of the child” is found in Iowa Code section 598.41(3).

Section 598.41 excludes a temporary custody award as a factor in determining the final custody arrangement.

In Re the Marriage of Denly · filed 1999-02-17

Although Roger argues otherwise, which party is awarded custody of the couple’s child or children on a temporary basis is not a factor that the district court is to consider in determining the final custody arrangement. See Iowa Code § 598.41.

Section 598.41(4) makes the subsection (3) custody factors nonmandatory when parents agree to joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Allan Legrand and Connie Legrand Upon the Petition of Allan Legrand, and Concerning Connie Legrand · filed 2014-02-05(4)

Thus, pursuant to section 598.41(4) we are not required to apply the subsection 3 factors.

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for determining the custodial arrangement that serves a child’s best interest.

Smith v. Bryan · filed 2014-06-11(3)

The Iowa Code provides a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining a custodial arrangement that is in the best interest of a child. Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (2011); In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007).

Section 598.41 makes a parent’s willingness to communicate with the other parent and support that parent’s relationship with the child a consideration in deciding physical care; willingness to facilitate visitation is one indicator.

Waters v. Alitz · filed 2015-03-11(3)(c), (3)(e)

We begin with the primary considerations in this case—whether Alitz would communicate with Waters and support his relationship with the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c), (e). One indicator is the parent’s willingness to facilitate visitation.

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors courts consider when deciding physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Alicia R. Williams and Justin Williams Upon the Petition of Alicia R. Williams, petitioner-appella · filed 2014-02-19(3)

We consider the nonexclusive lists of factors found in Iowa Code section 598.41(3)2 along with other factors found in In re ... Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) requires courts deciding the best physical care arrangement to weigh the statutory custody factors, including whether parents can communicate about the children and support each other’s relationship with them.

In Re the Marriage of Jennifer M. Velde and Adam R. Velde Upon the Petition of Jennifer M. Velde, and Concerning Adam R. · filed 2015-07-22(3)

In considering what custody arrangement is in the best interest of the children, the court must weigh the factors set out under Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2013). Relevant here are the questions of “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child[ren’s] needs” and “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child[ren].” See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c), (e).

Section 598.41(3) provides a non-exclusive list of factors for determining the custodial arrangement that serves a child’s best interests.

Hendersen v. Tiemessen · filed 2016-08-17(3)

The Iowa Code provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered in determining a custodial arrangement that is in the best interest of a child. Iowa Code §§ 598.41(3), 600B.40 (2013); In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683, 696 (Iowa 2007).

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

In Re the Marriage of Joshua James Cochran and Melissa Christine Cochran Upon the Petition of Joshua James Cochran, and · filed 2015-09-10(3)

His secretive behavior signals he would not be supportive of the children’s relationship with Melissa nor would he communicate effectively with her regarding joint parenting decisions. See Iowa Code § 598.41 (providing that when deciding custody issues, court is to consider “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent's relationship with the child”).

Section 598.41(3)(d) considers parents’ active care of a child both before and since separation when deciding physical care.

Seward v. Hane · filed 2016-03-09(3)(d)

Hane’s involvement waned following the couple’s separation. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d) (focusing on care “before and since the separation” (emphasis added)). ... But Hane’s failure to actively parent the children following his separation from Seward supported the district court’s decision to grant Seward physical care of the children.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for choosing the physical care placement that serves a child’s best interests.

Upon the Petition of Daniel David Upah, and Concerning Molli Jo Brandt · filed 2016-04-06(3)

In determining the physical care placement that is in L.D.U.’s best interests, we consider the factors of Iowa Code section 598.41(3), as well as the factors provided in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974) (including, among other factors, the characteristics of each parent; the capacity of each parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs of the child; and the stability and wholesomeness of each proposed environment).

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding physical care, including whether each parent will support the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Johnson v. Misty M. Hirschfield · filed 2016-04-27(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. ... It is clear each parent will support the other's relationship with A.R.J. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e).

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

In Re the Marriage of Kelly Diischer and Kyle Diischer Upon the Petition of Kelly Wood F/K/A Diischer, and Concerning Ky · 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) factors are relevant to physical care decisions, including the parents’ ability to communicate and support each other’s relationship with the child.

Giegerich v. Lahr · filed 2016-10-26(3)

Our supreme court also points us to the Iowa Code for additional factors to consider. ... In the case before us, we find the most important factors to consider are the parents’ ability to communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs, whether a parent will support the other parent’s relationship with the child, and the history of conflict between the parents.

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

Jenson Newton v. Najm · filed 2016-11-23(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.

Section 598.41(3) provides non-exclusive factors for determining the physical care arrangement that serves the children’s best interests.

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

When deciding the merits of Kati’s position we look to non-exclusive lists of factors for determining what physical care arrangement is in the children’s best interests. The lists appear in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2017)1 and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

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

Luck v. Salmon · filed 2018-08-01(3)

In determining what physical care arrangement is in the child’s best interests, we look to the non-exclusive factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2016) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3)(e) treats a parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent as a factor in deciding custody.

Bratton v. Minnix II · filed 2017-02-08(3)(e)

Jessica’s efforts to provide transportation for the children so that they may maintain contact with Charles over the years, before any court order was entered, shows her ability to support Charles’s relationship with the children. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e).

Section 598.41(3) directs courts deciding child custody to consider the parents’ past care, their suitability, the child’s wishes, and the parents’ ability to communicate about the child.

Deiman v. Leppert · filed 2017-07-06(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) sets forth several factors for consideration in child custody determinations, including whether “both parents have actively cared for the child,” “each parent would be a suitable custodian,” “the custody arrangement is in accord with the child’s wishes,” and “the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs.”

Section 598.41(3) supplies nonexclusive factors for custody determinations, including disputes between unwed parents.

Moses v. White · filed 2017-11-08(3)

In making custody determinations, courts consider, among other things, the factors described in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2015).

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

In Re the Marriage of Cara Renee Spencer and Chris Spencer Upon the Petition of Cara Renee Spencer, and Concerning Chris · filed 2017-07-19(1)(a)

Custody decisions must assure a child of divorce the “maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents” that is reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(a) permits a visitation schedule that preserves continuity and stability for children when that schedule serves their best interests.

In re the Marriage of Holtkamp · filed 2018-10-24(1)(a)

On our review of the record, we find the Tuesday and weekend visitation schedule in the temporary order provides continuity and stability in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires courts deciding custody to consider the arrangement that assures maximum continuing contact with both parents and encourages shared parental responsibilities, unless the child would suffer direct physical or significant emotional harm.

Blair v. Trish Scott n/k/a Trish Weimar · filed 2019-04-17(1)(a)

In determining what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider what arrangement “will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents . . . , and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a); see also id. § 600B.40 (applying section 598.41 to paternity cases).

Section 598.41(3)(d) makes each parent’s active caregiving before and after separation a factor in physical care decisions; allegedly equal caregiving does not itself entitle a parent to physical care.

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

We do consider “[w]hether both parents have actively cared for the child[ren] before and since the separation.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d); see also In re Marriage of Roberts, 545 N.W.2d 340, 343 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“Although certainly not controlling, due consideration should be given to the fact [one party] has been the historical primary care giver during the marriage.”). First and foremost, Brian’s status as an alleged “equal physical care provider” does not entitle him to physical care.

Section 598.41(3) requires courts deciding physical care to consider its best-interest factors in determining which parent can better meet the child’s needs.

Van Gundy v. Bolton · filed 2019-05-15(3)

The best-interest standard provides for a variety of factors for the court to consider when reaching a physical care determination. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (listing factors); In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 16–67 (Iowa 1974) (listing factors). ... We must consider the best-interest factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 589.41(3) and Winter to determine which parent will be better suited to minister to O.V.G.’s needs.

Section 598.41 requires custody and visitation arrangements to serve the child's best interests.

Alishouse v. Nicholson · filed 2021-01-21(1), (3)

While our review of the ruling on the motion to set aside default is at law, child custody matters are in equity and the best interests of the child is the driving force. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1), (3); Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988) (“It is axiomatic that we are concerned above all else in child custody cases with the best interests of the child.”). The best interests of the child are not served by the terms of the parenting plan, and the court abused its discretion in approving the plan.

Under section 598.41(3)(d), a parent’s slightly greater role as primary caretaker does not determine physical care.

Hesseltine v. Sorensen · filed 2019-06-19(3)(d)

We conclude Sorenson’s slightly greater role as primary caretaker was not determinative on the question of physical care. See id. § 600B.40(2) (adopting factors set forth in section 598.41(3) for custody determinations involving unmarried parents); see also id. § 598.41(3)(d) (considering “[w]hether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation”); McKee, 785 N.W.2d at 738–39 (affirming child’s placement with father despite mother’s role as primary caretaker for fifteen years).

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts to choose a custody arrangement that gives the child maximum continuing contact with both parents and encourages shared parenting unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm is likely.

Blasco v. Webb · filed 2019-08-07(1)(a)

The legislature directs us to determine the custody arrangement that “will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents . . . , and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child . . . is likely to result.” Id. § 598.41(1)(a).

Section 598.41(5)(b) allows the court to give great weight to a parent’s willingness to support the other parent’s relationship with the children when deciding physical care.

In re the Marriage of Hansen · filed 2019-08-07(5)(b)

Moreover, as the district court discussed in detail, only James is prepared to “support the other parent’s relationship with the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b). Under the particular facts of this case, we assign great weight to this factor.

Section 598.41(3) factors guide physical care decisions, together with other relevant circumstances, even though they do not directly apply to those decisions.

Dirks v. Eccles · filed 2020-04-15(3)

In determining whether to award shared physical care or physical care with one parent, the district court is guided by the factors enumerated in section 598.41(3), as well as other nonexclusive factors set out in In re Marriage of Winter, 233 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974), and Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696-99 (holding that although section 598.41(3) does not directly apply to physical care decisions, “the factors listed [in this code section] as well as other facts and circumstances are relevant in determining whether joint physical care is in the best interest of the child”).

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

Bartz v. McDonald · filed 2020-04-29(3)

In deciding which parent should have physical care, we consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2018).

Section 598.41(3) factors are relevant to physical care decisions, including modifications, even though the subsection does not directly govern physical care.

State of Iowa v. Jeffrey · filed 2020-08-19(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. ... Upon our de novo review of the record and considering the statutory and Winter factors, we find Ricardo met his burden to show he has a superior ability to minister most effectively to the child’s well-being.

Section 598.41(3) factors guide physical care decisions, alongside other relevant circumstances.

Tanner David Thomas v. Stotts · filed 2021-01-21(3)

When determining physical care, we are guided by the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3)1 as well as other nonexclusive factors set out in In ... re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) provides nonexclusive factors for deciding physical care, including each parent’s support for the children’s relationship with the other parent.

In re the Marriage of Bickerton · filed 2021-06-30(3)

In the end, when we examine the legislature’s nonexclusive list of factors, several factors tip the scale towards Melissa. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3). Melissa’s previous history of primary caregiving tops the list. Brian missed several years of involvement with these children. The court commended him for his care over the two-month testing ground where he provided full-time care. But under the factor involving each parent’s support of the other, Brian has been unable to promote or require these children to have contact with their mother.

Section 598.41(3) custody factors apply when deciding physical care between unmarried parents.

Granstra v. Driesen · filed 2019-08-07(3)

Specifically, we apply the factors set forth in our chapter on dissolutions of marriage. Id.; see Iowa Code §§ 598.41(3), 600B.40(2) (2018).

Section 598.41(5)(a) makes the child’s best interests the overriding concern in a physical-care determination.

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

In determining physical care, the overriding concern is always the best interests of the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(a) (2019).

Section 598.41(3) makes the child’s best interest the basis for choosing a physical-care placement and calls for consideration of a broad range of factors.

In re the Marriage of Shipp · filed 2022-02-16(3)

So our task is to determine which physical care placement—with Reggie or with Corina—is in C.L.S.’s “best interest.” Id. § 598.41(3). In making this decision, we consider a broad range of factors.

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

In re the Marriage of Klaren · filed 2022-05-11(3)

The nonexclusive factors provided in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) are relevant considerations in determining the physical-care arrangement that will be in the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41(3)(a) makes each parent’s suitability as a custodian a factor in deciding whether to award sole legal custody.

Noecker v. Cloyd-Hirz · filed 2022-05-25(3)(a)

We could begin and end with the first factor. Alex is not a suitable custodian for the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a).

Section 598.41(3) makes parents’ communication, prior caregiving, and support for each other’s relationship with the child considerations in a physical-care decision.

Doletina v. Maxfield · filed 2023-03-08(3)(c), (d), (e)

Among the statutory considerations are “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs”; “[w]hether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation”; and [w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(c), (d), (e).

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

Crowell v. Bonilla · filed 2023-08-30(3)(e)

This behavior, coupled with Melissa’s refusal to include Jerrin in parenting decisions and the difficulties she caused at parenting-time exchanges, speaks loudly to her unwillingness to co-parent. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e).

Section 598.41(3) supplies the factors courts consider when making physical care determinations.

In re the Marriage of Ferguson · filed 2022-05-11(3)

Courts examine the factors laid out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) when making physical care determinations.

Section 598.41(3)(d) directs courts deciding physical care to consider whether both parents actively cared for the child before and since separation.

In re the Marriage of Gilo and Louch · filed 2023-09-27(3)(d)

First, the child spent most of his life in Ariat’s physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d) (considering “whether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since separation”).

Section 598.41(3)(d) gives considerable weight to which parent has historically acted as the primary caregiver when deciding physical care.

In re The Marriage of Wonser · filed 2023-12-06(3)(d)

We give considerable weight to the parent who has historically acted as the primary caregiver. See In re Marriage of Decker, 666 N.W.2d 175, 177 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d). That parent is Molly, who acted as the sole caregiver at least from 2014 to 2019.

Section 598.41(3) makes a parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent and the parents’ ability to communicate relevant to the child’s best interests when modifying physical care.

Shephard v. Briley · filed 2024-02-07(3)

Withholding visitations, making multiple false accusations of child abuse, and failing to effectively co-parent are all key evidence that Briley is incapable of supporting their daughter’s relationship with Shepherd or communicating with him about their daughter’s needs. These are important statutory factors in assessing the best interest of their daughter. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child”); see also id. § 598.41(3)(c) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs”).

Section 598.41(3) makes the child’s best interests the overriding custody consideration, including each parent’s suitability and the effect of changing custody.

In the Interest of M.A., Minor Child · filed 2025-09-04(3)

We agree with the juvenile court’s decision to grant the father sole legal custody and physical care of the child. The evidence supporting that decision include the mother’s failure to adequately address her substance use and her inability to recognize the detrimental effect that her methamphetamine use has on her child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a) (outlining best interests of the child include “[w]hether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child”). Further, the father has provided a stable and safe home for the child. Changing the custodial arrangement would be psychologically and emotionally harmful to the child. See id. § 598.41(3)(b).

Section 598.41(3) makes the child’s best interests the overriding consideration when deciding custody and physical care.

In the Interest of H.S., Minor child · filed 2025-12-03(3)

Indeed, our overriding consideration in determining custody and physical care issues is the child’s best interests. See In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 2007); Iowa Code § 598.41(3); see also In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) (setting forth factors guiding the court in addition to those identified in Iowa Code section 598.41(3)).

Section 598.41(3) lists custody factors that bear on the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Riddle · filed 1993-03-30(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. 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.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding custody, with the child’s best interests as the governing consideration.

In Re the Marriage of Burkle · filed 1994-10-25(3)

In child custody cases, our first and governing consideration is the best interests of the child. The factors courts consider in awarding custody are found in our statutes, as well as prior cases. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3); ... Considering all the evidence, we agree with the trial court that the children’s best interests will be served by awarding primary care to Randy.

Section 598.41(3)'s custody factors guide courts in deciding the child's long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Wilson · filed 1995-03-30(3)

Our first and governing consideration in child custody cases is the best interests of the child. The factors to consider in awarding custody are found in our statutes, as well as prior cases. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (1993); In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 355-56 (Iowa 1983). These factors essentially bear on what will be in the long-term best interest of the child.

Section 598.41(3) provides custody factors that bear on the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Sprague · filed 1996-02-02(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are found in our statutes, as well as in prior cases. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3) (1993); In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 355-56 (Iowa 1983). These factors bear on what will be in the long-term best interests of the child.

Section 598.41 directs courts to consider the child's best interests in custody decisions; provisions allowing later custody review without a showing of changed circumstances are rarely in those interests.

In re Marriage of Vandergaast · filed 1997-11-25

In drafting the child custody provisions of the Iowa Code, the legislature has been careful to direct the courts to address the best interests of the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41 (1997). ... We agree with these statements and find temporary provisions such as the provision in the case at bar are rarely, if ever, in the best interests of the children.

Section 598.41 requires courts to consider the children’s best interests when awarding custody.

Erpelding v. Erpelding · filed 2018-07-06

Moreover, the legislature has determined the court must determine the best interest of the children when awarding custody. See Iowa Code § 598.41.

Section 598.41(3) guides physical care decisions by the children’s best interests, including whether joint physical care is appropriate.

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

The evidence supports the trial court’s detailed findings—set out earlier in this opinion—that joint physical care was not in the children’s best interests and placement in Katie’s physical care was. We adopt those findings as our own without getting into each of Ken’s complaints about Katie, as it would add little to our jurisprudence or the parties’ relationship moving forward.

Section 598.41 requires courts deciding custody to consider each parent’s suitability, ability to communicate and support the child’s relationship with the other parent, and unjustified denial of contact.

In re the Marriage of Awe · filed 2024-09-04(1)(c), (3)(a), (3)(c), (3)(e)

Hale’s consistent refusal to support Awe’s relationship with the ... children, inability to communicate and involve him in medical and educational decisions, and withholding of visitation all weigh heavily in favor of placement with Awe rather than Hale. See id. § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child”); id. § 598.41(3)(c) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs”); id. § 598.41(1)(c) (“The court shall consider the 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.”); see also In re Marriage of Quirk-Edwards, 509 N.W.2d 476, 480 (Iowa 1993). So too does the comparative stability and suitability of Awe’s home favor placing the children with him. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(a) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child”); Winter, 223 N.W.2d at 166 (factoring in the nature of the proposed environment).

Section 598.41(3) lists factors courts consider when awarding custody, guided by the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of McElroy · filed 1991-06-25(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in... All factors there listed bear on the “first and governing consideration,” the court’s determination of what will be in the long-term best interests of the child.

Section 598.41(3) supplies the factors courts consider when deciding custody in the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re Marriage of Hornung · filed 1991-12-13(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), ... All factors bear on the court’s determination of what will be in the long-term best interests of the child. ... We agree with the trial court determination that it is in the best interest of Benjamin for Linda to have his physical custody.

Section 598.41(3) enumerates factors courts consider when awarding custody.

Lambert v. Everist · filed 1988-01-20(3)

The factors considered in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in... and need not be listed here. They include the educational, medical, material and social needs of the child.

Section 598.41(3) sets out factors for deciding custody, with the children’s best interests governing the decision.

In Re the Marriage of Rodgers · filed 1991-04-02(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in ... 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for awarding custody, which the court applies in determining the child’s best interests.

Hodson v. Moore · filed 1991-04-15(3)

The factors to consider in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). ... After a thorough evaluation of the record we find Jeremiah’s best interests served by providing for joint custody in both of his parents and primary physical custody with Shawn, his mother.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for awarding custody, which the court weighs according to the children’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Blume · filed 1991-05-29(3)

The factors to consider in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). All factors bear on the “first and governing consideration,” the determination of what will be in the long-term best interests of the children.

Section 598.41(3) lists custody factors that the court considers in determining the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Lundtvedt · filed 1992-03-24(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in In re Marriage of Weidner, 338 N.W.2d 351, 356 (Iowa 1983), and 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.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding custody, with the children’s best interests as the governing consideration.

In Re the Marriage of Harris · filed 1993-02-23(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. 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).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for custody decisions, which the court considers in determining the child’s long-term best interests.

In re the Marriage of Donly · filed 1995-01-23(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.

Section 598.41(3)’s custody factors guide the court’s determination of the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Golay · filed 1992-11-30(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in ... 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.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for awarding custody, with the child’s best interests as the governing consideration.

In Re the Marriage of Coulter · filed 1993-05-04(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. 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). ... Although this court recognizes the deep roots each parent has in the community, the financial ability of each parent to provide for Ashley, and their genuine desire to raise Ashley, we do not find the current arrangement is in Ashley’s best interests.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for awarding custody according to the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Brauer · filed 1993-11-29(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. 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. ... Following a thorough review of the record, we agree with the district court’s award of primary physical care of Brittany to Kelli.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for custody decisions, all bearing on the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Love · filed 1993-11-29(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in ... 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.

Section 598.41(3) sets out factors for awarding custody, guided by the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Buttrey · filed 1995-07-25(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in ... 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.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for deciding custody, with the child’s long-term best interests as the governing consideration.

In Re the Marriage of Roberts · filed 1996-02-02(3)

In child custody cases, the best interests of the child is the first and governing consideration. The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), in ... 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.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors that supplement the best interests standard when deciding physical care, including the children’s need for stability.

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

Numerous factors exist to supplement the best interests standard, which are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3). ... The evidence presented at the trial, however, showed Kenneth had more stability in his life at the present time. ... We determine primary physical care of the children should be placed with Kenneth.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for deciding child custody in light of the child’s long-term best interests.

In Re the Marriage of Pothast · filed 1995-08-17(3)

The factors we consider in determining child custody disputes are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and in the cases of ... 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.

Section 598.41(3) enumerates the factors courts consider when awarding child custody.

In Re the Marriage of Courtade · filed 1996-12-20(3)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (1995), 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).

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for determining child custody.

In Re Rhyan · filed 2008-08-15(3)

The district court properly considered all the appropriate factors under Iowa Code section 598.41(3) when it made its custody determination.

Section 598.41 makes a parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent relevant to physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Bradley K. Dodge and Paola Camacho Upon the Petition of Bradley K. Dodge, and Concerning Paola Camacho · filed 2015-11-12(3)(c)

The factors the court considers in awarding custody are enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41 (2013) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Iowa 1974). ... Due to Brad’s evident “disgust and disdain” for Paola, we agree with the district court’s conclusion he was unlikely to be able to support Paola’s relationship with the child.