Iowa Code § 598.41

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

Hyde v. Mann · filed 2017-06-07(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2015) provides a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when determining what care arrangement is in a child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(3) provides a non-exclusive list of factors that guide custody decisions based on a child’s best interests.

Haugen v. Greenwood · filed 2021-04-14(3)

Our analysis is guided by a non-exclusive list of factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3).

Section 598.41(3) factors are generally considered when deciding whether joint physical care is in a child’s best interests.

Blair v. Trish Beck n/k/a Trish Halder · filed 2022-04-13(3)

We also generally consider the factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1974), which “include the educational, medical, material and social needs of the child.”

Section 598.41(3) provides the factors courts consider when determining a child's best interests in a physical care decision.

Libby v. Burgett · filed 2025-01-09(3)

In determining the best interests of the child, we consider the factors outlined in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2023).

Section 598.41(3)’s nonexclusive best-interests factors apply to physical-care decisions whether or not the parents were married.

McCoy v. Smith · filed 2025-10-01(3)

In determining the best interests of the child, we consider the nonexclusive factors outlined in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2024). Id. at 696; see also Moses v. Rosol, No. 18-0791, 2019 WL 2145709, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2019). We consider these factors regardless of whether the parents were married or never married.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide courts in deciding children’s best interests in a physical-care dispute.

In re the Marriage of Humphrey · filed 2026-01-07(3)

The factors in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2022) and those identified by our supreme court in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974) guide us in discerning the children’s best interests.

Section 598.41 does not apply to disputes over the disposition or use of frozen embryos because fertilized eggs and frozen embryos are outside its scope.

In Re the Marriage of Witten · filed 2003-12-17

For these reasons, we conclude the legislature did not intend to include fertilized eggs or frozen embryos within the scope of section 598.41.

Section 598.41 allows a court deciding custody to determine a child’s surname as part of the child’s legal status.

Montgomery v. Wells · filed 2005-11-09(2)

We therefore hold that the district court does have authority under Iowa Code section 600B.40, as it does in section 598.41, to consider and enter a ruling on a child’s legal status, including the determination of a child’s surname.

Section 598.41 permits a court to determine a child’s surname as part of an initial custody determination.

Braunschweig Vs. Summer Rae Fahrenkrog, F/k/a Summer Rae Frank · filed 2009-10-16(1)(a)

Previously, this court derived authority to change a child’s name from the state’s custody statute, Iowa Code section 598.41. ... The court, therefore, may change a child’s name pursuant to custody determinations under this section.

Section 598.41 gives a court deciding custody authority to determine a child’s surname as part of the child’s legal status.

Thompson v. Fowler · filed 2017-12-20

Accordingly, we repeat our holding “that the district court does have authority under Iowa Code section 600B.40, as it does in section 598.41, to consider and enter a ruling on a child’s legal status, including the determination of a child’s surname.” Id.

Section 598.41(e) gives a parent legal access to a child’s medical records even when the child is under a grandparent’s guardianship, unless a custody decree orders otherwise.

Maruna v. Harper · filed 2016-10-12(e)

Maruna is a parent who has legal access to information concerning the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(e) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the court in the custody decree, both parents shall have legal access to information concerning the child, including but not limited to medical, educational and law enforcement records.”).

Section 598.41(1)(e) gives both parents access to their children’s educational information without a change in legal custody.

In Re the Marriage of Valerie E. Hute F/K/A Valerie E. Baker and Joseph M. Baker Upon the Petition of Valerie E. Hute F/ · filed 2017-08-02(1)(e)

Joseph can access the children’s education information without a change in the custody provisions of the decree. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(e) (providing “both parents shall have legal access to information concerning the child, including but not limited to medical, educational and law enforcement records”).

Section 598.41(1)(e) gives both parents access to a child’s medical records, subject to the child’s best interests when joint legal custodians disagree about disclosure.

C.S., on behalf of H.S., a child v. J.C. · filed 2023-07-26(1)(e)

Moreover, J.C.’s rights as a legal custodian are not absolute. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(e) (providing that “both parents shall have legal access to information concerning the child, including . . . medical . . . records”); Harder v. Anderson, Arnold, Dickey, Jensen, Gullickson & Sanger, L.L.P., 764 N.W.2d 534, 538 (Iowa 2009) (stating that “the rights given to parents under section 598.41(1)(e) are tempered by the overriding principle that when dealing with a matter concerning a child whose custody was determined by a court decree . . . , the first and governing consideration a court must apply is the best interest of the child”). C.S., who shares legal custody of H.S., objected to the provider testifying about H.S.’s confidential communications. So even if J.C. signed a written voluntary authorization to consent to the disclosure of confidential information, the court acted within its discretion by limiting the provider’s testimony to protect H.S.’s longstanding and ongoing relationship with the mental-health provider as doing so would be in H.S.’s best interests.

Section 598.41(1)(e) permits a parent’s right to access information about the children to be clarified without changing legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Kanetomo · filed 2020-09-23(1)(e)

The proper avenues for dealing with these issues were to clarify Nick’s right to access information and modifying the visitation provisions of the decree, both of which the district court utilized.

Section 598.41(1) gives a noncustodial parent access to a child's medical records unless the custody decree orders otherwise, even when the decree predates the statute.

Leaf v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center · filed 1990-07-26(1)

We find no valid reason to refuse to apply the statutory provisions to all situations. ... Section 598.41(1) merely codified existing common law. Petitioner should have been granted access to the medical records.

Section 598.41(1)(e) did not entitle a parent without legal custody to the children’s medical records.

In Re the Marriage of Charity Ann Dowell and Troy Daniel Dowell Upon the Petition of Charity Ann Dowell, N/K/A Charity A · filed 2014-12-10(1)(e)

Section 598.41(1)(e), states that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court in the custody decree, both parents shall have legal access to information concerning the child, including but not limited to medical, educational and law enforcement records.” Because Dowell does not have legal custody, he is not entitled to the children’s medical records.

Section 598.41(1)(e) gives both parents legal access to information about their child, including medical, educational, and law enforcement records, without requiring a change in legal custody.

In re Marriage of Makela · filed 2022-11-17(1)(e)

The court cited Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(e), which affords “both parents . . . legal access to information concerning the child, including but not limited to medical, educational and law enforcement records.” Id. We agree with this reasoning.

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

In re Marriage of Creese · filed 2024-07-03(3)(e)

And they were, for the most part, supportive of one another’s relationship with the child. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (considering whether each parent can support the other’s relationship with the child).

In choosing physical care, courts weigh each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent under section 598.41(3)(e), along with the other best-interest factors.

In re Marriage of Shada · filed 2024-09-18(3)(e)

“The ability of each parent to actively support the other parent’s relationship with the child is an important factor in determining the physical [care] arrangement.” In re Marriage of Manson, 503 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993); accord Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e). ... After balancing all the relevant statutory factors, and considering the totality of the evidence, we find that it is in the children’s best interests to be placed in David’s physical care and modify the decree accordingly.

Section 598.41(3)(e) requires a custody court to consider whether each parent can support the child’s relationship with the other parent; a parent’s inability to do so can weigh against placing the child in that parent’s physical care.

Pieper v. Gabel · filed 2025-03-19(3)(e)

Gabel also challenges the court’s finding that she was unable to support Pieper’s relationship with D.R.P. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring the court to consider “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child” as part of its child-custody determination). ... We similarly find that the record supports the court’s finding that Gabel is unable to support Pieper’s relationship with their child and will “likely . . . use an award of physical care as a weapon to undermine her daughter’s relationship with her father.” ... Gabel’s historic role as caregiver does not weigh heavily in her favor when considered against the other factors. Specifically, we find that her inability to co-parent with Pieper does not convince us that she can provide “the environment most likely to bring [the child] to health.”

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

In re the Marriage of Wood · filed 2025-04-09(3)(e)

And like the district court, we find that the choice between the two parents is closely balanced except for one factor—Britta’s conduct while this proceeding has been pending shows that she is less likely to support their son’s relationship with Nick if he is placed in her physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (requiring consideration of “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child”).

Section 598.41(3)(e) weighs a parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent; a parent’s caregiving history carries less weight when built partly by denying the other parent access.

Mairose v. Darnell · filed 2026-02-11(3)(e)

Second, we are further reluctant to credit Emily’s historical-caregiver status “when her role resulted partly from denying” Tayten “access to the child.” Randall v. Trier, 15 N.W.3d 809, 813 (Iowa Ct. App 2024); see also Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e) (considering whether a “parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child”).

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

In re the Marriage of Cowern · filed 2024-05-08(3)(e)

One factor we consider is “[w]hether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child[ren].” Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(e); see also In re Marriage of Barnhart, No. 12-2251, 2013 WL 2372309, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). ... We thus agree with the district court’s finding that Brandis “is more likely to ensure that the children spend adequate time with [Read] than would be the case if [Read] was the primary care parent doling out visitation to [Brandis].”

Section 598.41(3)(e) makes each parent’s ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent an important factor in physical custody decisions.

In Re the Marriage of Manson · filed 1993-05-25(3)(e)

The ability of each parent to actively support the other parent’s relationship with the child is an important factor in determining the physical custody arrangement. Iowa Code section 598.41(3)(e) (1991).

Section 598.41(5)(b) requires a parent seeking physical care to support the child’s relationship with the other parent; undue restrictions on parenting time weigh against that parent.

Lesher v. Hansen · filed 2020-09-02(5)(b)

And “the parent responsible for providing physical care [must] support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b). ... And her choice to be unduly restrictive of Andrew’s parenting time with G.H. shows a lack of support for their relationship.

Section 598.41(5)(b) makes a parent’s willingness to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent relevant to physical care.

In re the Marriage of Budden · filed 2021-04-14(5)(b)

Beyond the sibling relationships, the district court also considered the willingness of Lady and Tobiah to promote C.J.B.’s relationship with the other parent. See Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(b) (2019). ... So Lady was the parent better able to support the other parent’s relationship with C.J.B.

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires courts to treat a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent as a significant factor in choosing custody.

In re Marriage of Flieder · filed 2025-05-21(1)(c)

Our statute requires the district court to “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.”7 Id. § 598.41(1)(c).

Section 598.41 requires courts deciding custody to give significant weight to a parent’s unjustified interference with the child’s continuing contact with the other parent.

In Re the Marriage of Udelhofen · filed 1989-08-16

Jan’s flagrant and continuing interference with Stevie’s opportunity to associate with his father was in clear violation of the social precept mentioned in the statute. We are bound to consider it.

Section 598.41(1) makes one parent’s denial of the other parent’s opportunity for maximum contact a significant factor in determining custody.

In Re the Marriage of Fogle · filed 1993-02-02(1)

In addition, the court shall consider the denial by one parent of the other parent’s opportunity for maximum contact a significant factor when determining the proper custody arrangement.

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

In re the Marriage of Knight · filed 1993-09-02(1)

In custody determinations we are also mindful the court must consider the denial of one parent of the child’s opportunity to have meaningful contact with the other parent is a significant factor in determining the custody arrangement.

Section 598.41(1) permits a court to treat one parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent as a significant custody factor.

Langner v. Mull · filed 1990-01-25(1)

A court may consider the denial by one parent of the child's opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, to be a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. Iowa Code § 598.41(1) (1989).

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

Upon the Petition of Justin Charles Schleidt, and Concerning Syerra Michelle Huston · filed 2015-03-11(1)(c)

If one parent denies the child the opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, we consider it “a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement.” Id. § 598.41(1)(c).

A parent concerned about danger during court-ordered visitation must seek a modification and comply with the visitation order until a real danger is established in court.

Stoberl v. Iowa District Court for Polk County · filed 2015-06-10(1)(a)

We find the following analysis in Klepper to be persuasive: ... The remedy must be an application to the court to modify, not a reversal by the anxious parent. The statutes are unmistakably clear: until they establish in court that a real danger to a child exists, all parents must comply with “the maximum physical and emotional contact” between a child and the other parent. Iowa Code § 598.41. ... In this case, Belle did not seek a court order for modification of visitation pending the outcome of the DHS investigation and the DHS had no order in place requiring the children to be kept away from Joseph or his paramour. ... We find substantial evidence to support the district court’s determination that Belle acted in willful disobedience of the dissolution decree when she unilaterally denied Joseph visitation with J.S. and C.S.

Section 598.41(1)(a) makes maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents a goal in custody decisions, and a parent’s ability to encourage the children’s relationship with the other parent bears on physical care.

In Re the Marriage of James R. Shovar and Christina A. Shovar Upon the Petition of James R. Shovar, and Concerning Chris · filed 2015-08-19(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). ... Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court’s assessments of the parties’ respective abilities to encourage the relationship of the children with the other parent.

Section 598.41(5)(b) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s continuing contact with the other parent a significant factor in determining physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Linda Elizabeth Rossow and Daniel Michael Rossow Upon the Petition of Linda Elizabeth Rossow, and · filed 2017-08-16(5)(b)

“The parent awarded physical care is required to support the other parent’s relationship with the child.” Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 700 (citing Iowa Code § 598.41(5)(b) (“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.”)). ... In contrast, Linda’s testimony and journal entries7 can only support the conclusion that Linda has no desire to co-parent with Daniel or support Daniel’s role as the children’s father.

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

Ruden v. Kyra Peach · filed 2017-09-27(1)(c)

A “significant factor” in determining custody is whether one parent has denied the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent without just cause. See id. § 598.41(1)(c). ... We disagree with the court’s findings.

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires courts deciding physical care to consider whether one parent will deny the other maximum contact with the child without cause.

Hernandez v. Deena Jo Mills · filed 2018-11-07(1)(c)

Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(c) requires this court to consider whether one parent will deny the other the opportunity for maximum contact with the child without cause.

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

In re the Marriage of Toop · filed 2020-01-09(1)(c)

“The court shall consider the denial by one parent of the child[ren]’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c). This factor weighs against Angela having physical care.

Section 598.41(1)(c) makes a parent’s failure to assure a child the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents a significant factor in determining physical care.

In re the Marriage of Waterhouse · filed 2020-08-05(1)(c)

Her conduct did not “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a) (2018). We consider it a “significant factor” in determining the proper physical care arrangement. See id. § 598.41(1)(c).

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

Knotek v. Mellin · filed 2020-09-02(1)(c)

We agree with the district court that consideration of the statutory factors weighs against joint legal custody. There is compelling evidence that Cynthia, while she might not have directly reported abuse, attempted to deny Doug’s participation in the twins’ lives.

A parent’s discontent with the other parent’s planned move is not just cause under § 598.41(1)(c) to deny the child contact with that parent.

Quawim I. Gates v. Johnson · filed 2021-08-18(1)(c)

But Gates’s discontent with Johnson’s planned move is not “just cause” for denying Q.N.I.G. contact with her mother. See Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c).

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

In re the Marriage of Frey and Kerres · filed 2022-01-12(1)(c)

In addition to these factors, the court must consider “the denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, [which is] a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement.”

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires courts to treat a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent as a significant factor in determining custody.

Connell v. Barker · filed 2023-07-26(1)(c)

In fact, we are directed to “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.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c) (2021).

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

In Re the Marriage of Michael Girres and Jessica Girres Upon the Petition of Michael Girres, and Concerning Jessica Girr · filed 2014-06-11(1)(c)

“[T]he denial by one parent of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, [is] a significant factor in determining the proper custody ... arrangement.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(c) (2011). ... We give weight to this credibility finding and conclude Jessica supported Michael’s relationship with the children.

Section 598.41(1)(c) makes a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s contact with the other parent a significant custody factor that can outweigh the benefit of placing half-siblings together.

In re the Marriage of McDonald · filed 2023-12-06(1)(c)

Tyler and Cheri’s son’s long-term interests in having his primary caregiver support ... his relationship with his other parent and communicate about his needs outweigh the somewhat increased contact with his half-sister that would occur if he were placed in her home. See In re Marriage of Quirk–Edwards, 509 N.W.2d 476, 480 (Iowa 1993) (holding that parent’s attempt to limit child’s contact with other parent was a compelling reason to separate half-siblings and place child with the other parent); see also Iowa Code § 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.”).

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

In Re Marriage of Grabill · filed 1987-08-26(1)

Iowa Code section 598.41(1) (1985) provides that the court shall consider one parent’s denial of the other parent’s maximum continuing contact with the children, without cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. In reviewing the transcript, we find that Christine was less than cooperative in letting Dennis exercise visitation with the children.

Section 598.41(1) makes denial of a parent’s contact with a child a significant custody factor; complying with the visitation decree did not warrant a custody change.

In re the Marriage of Kalvig · filed 1990-06-26(1)

A parent’s denial of the other parent’s contact with their child is a significant factor in determining custody. Iowa Code section 598.41(1) (1989). ... We cannot find that Larry has so interfered with Debra’s visitation with her children that custody should be modified.

Section 598.41(1) makes unjustified denial of a child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent a significant custody factor; interference with visitation can alone support a custody change.

In Re the Marriage of Quirk-Edwards · filed 1993-12-22(1)

In considering custody matters we follow the directions of the legislature in Iowa Code section 598.41 (1991). Subsection 1 includes the following prescription: ... 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. ... If visitation rights of the noncustodial parent are jeopardized by the conduct of the custodial parent, such acts could provide an adequate ground for a change of custody.

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires courts to give significant weight to a parent’s unjustified denial of the child’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent.

In Re the Marriage of Nicole Cleveringa and Darin L. Cleveringa Upon the Petition of Nicole Cleveringa, and Concerning Darin L. Cleveringa · filed 2014-07-16(1)(c)

Additionally, “[t]he 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.” Iowa Code 598.41(1)(c). Darin denied Nicole physical contact with the couple’s children for several months when he violated the temporary custody agreement.

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires courts to treat a parent's unjustified denial of the child's contact with the other parent as a significant factor in deciding custody.

Higdon v. Shafer · filed 2023-09-27(1)(c)

And there was credible evidence that, before the change in physical care, Shafer had intentionally denied Higdon access to the child based on her allegations of abuse that two different judges and ... HHS determined were false or otherwise unfounded. See Iowa Code § 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.”). This evidence supports the district court’s decision on physical care.

Section 598.41(1)(c) requires a court deciding custody to consider whether one parent denied the child an opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent.

Fankhauser v. Kistler · filed 2024-10-30(1)(c)

Second, Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(c) requires the district court to consider the denial by one parent of the children’s opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent.

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

In re the Marriage of Hammermeister · filed 2025-12-03(2)(b)

A parent seeking sole legal custody must provide clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and not in the child’s best interest, to the extent that the legal relationship between the other parent and child should be severed. ... Like the district court, we agree that clear and convincing evidence exists that Shannon Hammermeister should be awarded sole legal custody of Z.A.H. and C.R.H.

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

In re the Marriage of Anderson · filed 2025-12-17(2)(b)

But a parent can overcome that preference with “clear and convincing evidence . . . that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child.” Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b) (2024). Chelsea made that showing. Joint legal custody was neither reasonable nor in I.R.A.’s best interests.

Section 598.41(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence that joint legal custody is unreasonable and not in the children’s best interests before a court awards sole legal custody.

In re the Marriage of Taylor · filed 2026-03-11(2)(b)

To overcome that statutory preference, courts must point to clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b).

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

In re the Marriage of Serrano · filed 2020-06-17(2)(b)

If the district court does not grant joint legal custody, it must identify clear and convincing evidence, based on those section 598.41(3) factors, showing joint legal ... custody is unreasonable and not in the children’s best interests. Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b). ... Contrary to Emilio’s assertion, the overriding factor weighing against joint legal custody is the inability of Emilio and Trisha to communicate in a respectful manner.

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

In re the Marriage of Jacobson · filed 2021-06-16(2)(b)

Here, we find “clear and convincing evidence . . . that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.” See Iowa Code § 598.41(2)(b). We affirm the district court’s award of sole legal custody to Jeffrey.

Section 598.41(1)(a) requires the court to make a custody award in a dissolution action.

In Re the Marriage of Richard R. Schmidt and Jill Schmidt Upon the Petition of Richard R. Schmidt, and Concerning Jill S · filed 2014-05-29(1)(a)

And chapter 598 authorizes and mandates the district court to intercede in a dissolution-of-marriage proceeding to order custody and visitation. Id. § 598.41(1)(a) (stating “[t]he court . . . shall order the custody award . . . .”).

Section 598.41(1)(a)’s requirement of maximum continuing contact with both parents can support a right of first refusal when a parent’s work requires extended time away from the child.

In Re the Marriage of Misty Klemmensen and Michael Klemmensen Upon the Petition of Misty Klemmensen, and Concerning Mich · filed 2015-05-06(1)(a)

Our law requires a custody award that will “assure the child maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents” after divorce, including “liberal visitation rights where appropriate.” Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a). ... We conclude Misty should be given “the right of first refusal” when Michael is required to work for twelve or more consecutive hours or ... during his National Guard weekends if Misty does not already have visitation scheduled with K.L.K. for that weekend.

Section 598.41(3)(h) makes the parents’ geographic proximity one factor in deciding joint custody; separation alone does not prevent an award.

In Re the Marriage of Behn · filed 1986-04-16(3)(h)

Of the benchmarks listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3), only factor (h), “[t]he geographic proximity of the parents,” gives us pause. ... Neither does geographic separation prevent joint custody; it is just one of the factors which the trial court and we must weigh.

Section 598.41(5) entitles both joint legal custodians to participate in decisions about their children’s religious instruction.

In Re the Marriage of Craig · filed 1990-09-26(5)

Under the plain language of this provision, both parties are entitled to participate in deciding questions regarding the religious instruction of the children.

Section 598.41(5) calls for both parents to be involved in decisions about their children’s religious instruction.

In Re the Marriage of Moore · filed 1994-08-25(5)

According to the language of Iowa Code section 598.41(5) both parties should be involved in decisions about the religious instruction of the children.

Under section 598.41(5), a parent awarded physical care has final say over the children’s principal home, even when the parents share joint custody.

In Re the Marriage of Westcott · filed 1991-04-02(5)

Because Anita has the physical care of the children, Richard cannot veto her right to have final say where the principal home will be.

Section 598.41(3) custody criteria apply whether the parents are divorcing or were never married.

Jacobson v. Gradin · filed 1992-06-25(3)

The criteria governing custody determinations are the same regardless of whether the parents are dissolving their marriage or have never been married to each other.

Section 598.41(3)'s custody factors apply to custody and physical-care decisions involving children of parents who were never married.

McCullough v. Cornette · filed 2021-04-14(3)

We look to the same factors in custody or physical care determinations of a child born to parents who were never married as we do to a child of married parents, including the factors enumerated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2019) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974).

Section 598.41(1) does not limit visitation solely because a parent lives outside Iowa or the United States.

In Re the Marriage of Michelle Nichole Garland Stern and Menachem Medel Stern Upon the Petition of Michelle Nichole Garl · filed 2015-02-11(1)

Iowa Code section 598.41(1) (2013), provides the court shall order custody and “liberal visitation rights where appropriate” to “assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents.” Section 598.1(1) defines “best interest of the child” to include “the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents.” The Code does not in any way limit these considerations solely because one of the parents resides outside the borders of Iowa or the United States.

Section 598.41(2)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption based on domestic abuse; evidence of abuse does not automatically bar a parent from physical care.

In Re the Marriage of Christopher C. Remrey and Shirlee S. Remrey Upon the Petition of Christopher C. Remrey, and Concerning Shirlee S. Remrey · filed 2016-11-09(2)(c)

Evidence of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption; it does not automatically preclude a party from having physical care of children.

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

Mansaray v. Nayou · filed 2017-05-17(1)(a)

Although Iowa Code section 598.41(1)(a) (2016) 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 [children].”

Section 598.41(3)’s best-interest guidelines can favor sole legal custody when one parent provides stability and the other’s substance abuse and criminal activity hinder joint custody.

McAllister v. Pollard · filed 2017-10-11(3)

We also find the district court considered C.E.M.’s best interests by applying the guidelines of Iowa Code section 598.41(3). Jeff provides stability for C.E.M., and she is thriving in his care. Nicole’s continued substance abuse and criminal activity has hindered her ability to fulfill the role of C.E.M.’s joint legal ... custodian. Accordingly, we agree modification is in C.E.M.’s best interests and affirm the district court’s order.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors a court may consider when determining a child’s best interests in a joint physical care modification.

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

In determining the best interests of children, we can consider the factors outlined in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2024).

Section 598.41(3)(d) makes each parent’s caregiving before and since separation relevant to physical care; stability and continuity of care are important factors.

In re the Marriage of Ingersoll · filed 2018-07-18(3)(d)

Stability and continuity factors tend to favor a spouse who, prior to divorce, was primarily responsible for physical care. See Iowa Code § 598.41(3)(d) (“Whether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation.”); ... We continue to believe stability and continuity of caregiving are important factors that must be considered in custody and care decisions.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors for determining custody arrangements, and courts also consider caregiving history, parental communication, conflict, and agreement on daily matters.

In re the Marriage of Hockemeyer · filed 2018-09-26(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2017) specifies factors to be considered in determining custody arrangements. We also consider a number of other factors, including who has historically cared for the children, the ability of the parents to communicate and be respectful, the degree of conflict between the parents, and how much the parents generally agree about their approach to daily matters.

Section 598.41(3) supplies factors for determining a child’s best interests in a paternity custody proceeding through section 600B.40(2).

Kristin M. Potter v. Smith · filed 2019-12-18(3)

The trial court set forth the factors for consideration in making a custodial determination delineated in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2018), as referenced in section 600B.40(2). ... The trial court applied the correct factors in determining the best interests of the child after an opportunity to gauge credibility.

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for child custody decisions, including each parent’s suitability, the child’s needs, prior caregiving, and safety.

Kaspar v. Biermann · filed 2022-04-13(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors for consideration, which include the suitability of each parent as a custodian, the parents’ ability to communicate, whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer from lack of contact and attention from both parents, the previous pattern of caregiving, each parent’s support of the other, geographic proximity, and safety.

Section 598.41(3) provides factors that guide physical-care decisions; the weight of each factor depends on the facts of the case.

Elijah Blue Hoyt v. Segovia · filed 2022-08-17(3)

And we are guided by the factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) and those enumerated in our case law. ... The weight we assign to each factor depends on the particular facts of each case.

Section 598.41(3) provides a nonexclusive list of factors for custody decisions that also apply to physical care decisions.

In re Marriage of Wnuk and Knauss · filed 2022-10-05(3)

Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2020) sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors for consideration in custody disputes, which include the suitability of each parent as a custodian, the parents’ ability to communicate, whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer from lack of contact and attention from both parents, the previous pattern of caregiving, each parent’s support of the other, geographic proximity, and safety. These factors are likewise relevant to determine the allocation of physical care.

Section 598.41(3) provides custody factors that guide decisions for married and unmarried parents, but the factors are not always determinative; the court considers each case’s circumstances.

Cutshall v. Gage Joseph Olson · filed 2024-08-21(3)

Still, Gage argues that many of the factors we consider in evaluating whether joint physical care is appropriate weigh in his favor. ... see also Lambert v. Everist, 418 N.W.2d 40, 42 (Iowa 1988) (stating that for both married and unmarried parents, we are guided by the factors set out in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2022) and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Iowa 1974)); ... But, as Maryann asserts, these factors are not always determinative. Instead, we “must consider the total setting presented by each unique case.”

Section 598.41(1)(a) directs courts deciding physical care and visitation to give children the opportunity for maximum continuing and emotional contact with both parents when reasonable and in their best interests.

In re the Marriage of Dugan · filed 2019-07-03(1)(a)

In determining physical care and visitation, the court is to “assure the child the opportunity for maximum continuing and emotional contact with both parents” to the extent reasonable and in the child’s best interests.

Section 598.41(5)(b) gives joint legal custodians equal participation in educational decisions; when they disagree about a child’s school, the court must decide which choice serves the child’s best interests.

In re the Marriage of Comstock · filed 2021-03-17(5)(b)

The provision follows Iowa Code section 598.41(5)(b) (2020), which provides joint legal custodians are entitled to “equal participation in decisions affecting the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.” ... Therefore, we do not engage in a full discussion of the issue at this time but reverse the decision of the district court and remand for the court to make ... a determination as to whether the children’s attendance at Waukee School District or St. Francis of Assisi School is in their best interests.