Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Iowa Court Backs Off On Definition of Legal Custody

Recently, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion in In re Marriage of Hynick which may influence how a non-custodial parent is treated as a decision-maker. The Court insinuated that the non-custodial parent has an apparently inferior role by stating as follows:

When joint physical care is not warranted, the court must choose one parent to be the primary caretaker, awarding the other parent visitation rights. See generally Iowa Code § 598.41(1)(a), (5). Under this arrangement, the parent with primary physical care has the responsibility to maintain a residence for the child and has the sole right to make decisions concerning the child’s routine care. See generally id. § 598.1(7). The noncaretaker parent is relegated to the role of hosting the child for visits on a schedule determined by the court to be in the best interest of the child. Visitation time varies widely and can even approach an amount almost equal to the time spent with the caretaker parent. See generally Iowa Ct. R. 9.9 (setting forth graduated credits against child support obligation for extraordinary visitation including a twenty-five percent credit for “167 or more [visitation days] but less than equally shared physical care”). Thus, the main distinction between joint physical care and primary physical care with liberal visitation rights is the joint decision making on routine matters required when parents share physical care.

It remains to be seen whether this decision is the start of a retreat from the principle of equal decision-making by joint legal custodians . On the one hand, the decision refers solely to decisions involving the child's "routine" care; on the other hand, the stark language of the non-custodial parent being "relegated to the role of hosting the child" calls to mind the image of the non-custodial parent as a mere baby-sitter.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Legislation to Ban Children's Exposure to Second-hand Smoke

Connecticut legislators have introduced a bill that would ban smoking in cars when a minor child is present. The legislation has been proposed by a 9 year-old boy from East Hartford.

While I am in support of children being excluded from second-hand smoke exposure it may leave the door open to other legislation severely limiting an adult's behavior. If passed it means that there will be no stopping to what may be banned around children in the future. Heavy perfume because it might induce allergies or an asthma attack? Chocolate milk and candy because it is lending to obesity in children and juvenile diabetes?

Whoever has responsibility for a minor child should take it upon themselves to communicate with whoever the child is around and discuss these issues. Is legislation needed for common sense items?