Iowa Custody and Visitation Law
Iowa courts typically have not restricted custody and visitation of gay or lesbian parents as long as they conceal their sexual orientations. It would seem that courts would not look favorably on granting custody and/or visitation to a gay or lesbian parent who did not conceal his or her sexual orientation or the nature of a relationship with a same-sex partner. There are no reported or published opinions dealing with transgender parents or same-sex co-parents.
Custody and Visitation for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Parents
Iowa law states: “The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, 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, other children or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent. …
“In considering what custody arrangement … is in the best interest of the minor child, the court shall consider the following factors: a) Whether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child; b) Whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer due to lack of active contact with and attention from both parents; c) Whether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs; d) Whether both parents have actively cared for the child before and since the separation; e) Whether each parent can support the other parent’s relationship with the child; f) 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; g) Whether one or both the parents agree or are opposed to joint custody; h) The geographic proximity of the parents; i) Whether the safety of the child, other children, or the other parent will be jeopardized by the awarding of joint custody or by unsupervised or unrestricted visitation; and j) Whether a history of domestic abuse … exists.
In one 2000 case, In re the Marriage of Shea and Shea, the trial court had granted physical custody to the mother. The father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the mother engaged in moral misconduct including same-sex affairs. The appeals court held that the trial court had weighed all of the evidence and there was no abuse of discretion when it granted the mother physical custody.
In another 2000 case, In re the Marriage of Kraft and Peterson, the mother was granted custody with the gay father having visitation. The mother had asked the trial court to require the parties to determine jointly when and how the children should be told about the father’s sexual orientation. The trial court refused to add this requirement to the decree. The mother appealed. The appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that this would be court interference with the parent’s joint decision and it would be needless court involvement.
In a 1995 case, In re the Marriage of Cupples, the mother, Kelly, appealed the district court’s decision to award the father, William, the physical care of their children. She argued that the court placed undue emphasis on her sexual orientation. The appeals court, upon reviewing the record from the district court, found “no support for Kelly’s contention that the district court placed undue emphasis on her sexual orientation.” They affirmed that “discreet homosexual parents will not be denied visitation or custody merely because of their sexual orientation.”
In a 1993 case, In re the Marriage of Wiarda, the trial court awarded joint legal custody to the parents, with the father receiving primary physical custody. The mother appealed this decision. She argued that the court improperly relied on her same-sex relationship. The appellate court found nothing in the record or in the rulings of the trial court to support this suggestion and affirmed the decision.
In one 1990 case, Hodson v. Moore, the district court awarded joint legal custody. The father, David, received primary physical custody. The mother, Shawn, appealed this decision, arguing that she should have primary physical custody. The appeals court agreed, stating: “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. We base our opinion upon various factors but find that neither of Jeremiah’s parents’ situations are beyond our concerns with respect to Jeremiah’s future well-being. Although Shawn’s homosexual relationship with Lori appears to be of great concern to David and a fair amount of concern to the trial court we are more concerned about other aspects of the parties’ situations. Both Shawn and Lori testified they are discreet with respect to their sexual relationship and do not engage in any inappropriate behavior in Jeremiah’s presence. … Further, no testimony was entered about any harm to Jeremiah as a direct result of Shawn’s homosexuality per se.”
In another 1990 case, In re Marriage of Walsh, the father, Michael, announced he was gay after separating from his wife. The trial court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with the mother receiving primary physical custody. Michael received visitation rights with the condition that visitation could only occur when “no unrelated adult” was present. Michael appealed this condition. The court reversed this condition, stating: “We find no reason for the requirement that Michael’s visitations be restricted to times when ‘no unrelated adult’ is present. This unusual provision was obviously imposed on account of Michael’s homosexual lifestyle.”
In a 1978 case, In re Marriage of Teepe, the trial court granted custody of the child to the mother. The father appealed, arguing that the court placed undue emphasis on his “homosexual” conduct (including an arrest for exposing himself). The state Supreme Court found that the trial court properly gave consideration to evidence of proven immoral acts as one of several factors that weighed in its decision.
Citations: Iowa Code § 598.41; In re the Marriage of Shea and Shea, 2000 WL 62941 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000); In re the Marriage of Kraft and Peterson, 2000 WL 1289135 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000); In re the Marriage of Cupples, 531 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995); In re the Marriage of Wiarda, 505 N.W. 2d 506 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993); Hodson v. Moore, 464 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990); In re Marriage of Walsh, 451 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1990); In re Marriage of Teepe, 271 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1978).
The legal information provided on this page is provided as a courtesy to the public. It is not designed to serve as legal advice. HRC does not warrant that this information is current or comprehensive.
Last Updated: 8/30/2004