The dissent nails it. If you haven't dealt with family law cases, you might not understand or agree. But I'm telling you the dissent nails it
From my experience...the worst decision in Iowa Supreme Court History
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
The dissent nails it. If you haven't dealt with family law cases, you might not understand or agree. But I'm telling you the dissent nails it
Going to bump this, because I have always believed kids should not go through the hell of parents that can't agree.
Thanks, dawg.
This is like when torbz tells us an article is, like, totally boss.
I scrolled through so maybe I missed it - did it mention ages of kids involved?
I guess I went straight to the law and arguments. Didn't notice ages.
I'm telling you though, and this board is indicative of it, that some parents won't agree on anything. It might be one or both.
In my situation with my stepchildren, dad would constantly cancel medical and mental health appointments. Threatened providers.
It eventually got bio-dad on child abuse registry. But in the meantime, kids suffered.
Listen, you lawyer-fuck, I got a million-dollar credit with you.
Carlito's Way (1993) clip with quote Listen, you lawyer-****, I got a million-dollar credit with you. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
getyarn.io
Summary please? It is 36 pages. What is the issue?
Remind me in two hours after the Chiefs game, I'll give you my best summary. In the meantime, read the dissent. I agree with the dissent
Sorry Jimmy. I have read more exciting phone books…how about a brief synopsis for us normal, non lawyer guys…😉
Alright, quick synapsis.
Two parents can't agree on whether child gets a vaccine. So parent that wants vaccine for child asks the court to intervene. Court declines....goes on to court of appeals....than to Iowa Supreme Court.
Take out the vaccine issue. It could be life saving procedure, or mental health for the child. It could be anything you can imagine that the child may need or want to do.
Supreme Court says Iowa Code doesn't allow them to make decisions and the parent looking out for the child needs to file a modification action.
Dissent:
"But no more. After today, when joint legal custodians are at an impasse, one party must now file a petition to modify the legal custody rights of the parents even if the party does not want to modify the legal custody rights of the parents. This new requirement triggers a filing fee, mandatory discovery, mandatory classes, and mandatory mediation. In addition, because Iowa law does not allow the division of custodial rights on a per-issue basis, each party is now at risk of losing his or her custodial rights on all issues even though the parents disagree about only one discrete issue.
Under the majority’s new rule, now that the stakes are higher, the parties are incented to hire lawyers (if they can afford one),conduct discovery, and escalate their attacks on each other to prove a substantial change in circumstances and an ability to minister more effectively to the needs of the children. In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158(Iowa 1983). In short, under the majority’s new rule, the district court’s docket gets more congested, litigation costs balloon, attorney fees increase, delay lengthens, the stakes get higher, the rancor escalates, and access to justice is limited. Who are the winners here?
IV. While it is hard to identify any winners from today’s ruling, the losers are easily identifiable: stare decisis, the courts, parents, and their children. What is inexplicable to me is why there need be any losers. The court’s decision today is contrary to the Iowa Constitution, contrary to the Code, contrary to our own precedents, contrary to the precedents of courts throughout America, contrary to the welfare of families in this state, and contrary to this court’s own policy of improving access to justice. I respectfully dissent."
I'm not making my opinion lightheartedly. Kids suffer because of the litigation. Parents suffer because of the litigation. District Court judges don't want to hear these cases.
A burnt out attorney like myself no longer will do these cases. There are no happy endings. And instead of having some balls to control some crazy parents in the best interests of children, they decided to punt. Lazy, heartless decision. And I would say that to any of them to their face.
Two parents can't agree on whether child gets a vaccine. So parent that wants vaccine for child asks the court to intervene. Court declines....goes on to court of appeals....than to Iowa Supreme Court.
Take out the vaccine issue. It could be life saving procedure, or mental health for the child. It could be anything you can imagine that the child may need or want to do.
Supreme Court says Iowa Code doesn't allow them to make decisions and the parent looking out for the child needs to file a modification action.
Dissent:
"But no more. After today, when joint legal custodians are at an impasse, one party must now file a petition to modify the legal custody rights of the parents even if the party does not want to modify the legal custody rights of the parents. This new requirement triggers a filing fee, mandatory discovery, mandatory classes, and mandatory mediation. In addition, because Iowa law does not allow the division of custodial rights on a per-issue basis, each party is now at risk of losing his or her custodial rights on all issues even though the parents disagree about only one discrete issue.
Under the majority’s new rule, now that the stakes are higher, the parties are incented to hire lawyers (if they can afford one),conduct discovery, and escalate their attacks on each other to prove a substantial change in circumstances and an ability to minister more effectively to the needs of the children. In re Marriage of Frederici, 338 N.W.2d 156, 158(Iowa 1983). In short, under the majority’s new rule, the district court’s docket gets more congested, litigation costs balloon, attorney fees increase, delay lengthens, the stakes get higher, the rancor escalates, and access to justice is limited. Who are the winners here?
IV. While it is hard to identify any winners from today’s ruling, the losers are easily identifiable: stare decisis, the courts, parents, and their children. What is inexplicable to me is why there need be any losers. The court’s decision today is contrary to the Iowa Constitution, contrary to the Code, contrary to our own precedents, contrary to the precedents of courts throughout America, contrary to the welfare of families in this state, and contrary to this court’s own policy of improving access to justice. I respectfully dissent."
I'm not making my opinion lightheartedly. Kids suffer because of the litigation. Parents suffer because of the litigation. District Court judges don't want to hear these cases.
A burnt out attorney like myself no longer will do these cases. There are no happy endings. And instead of having some balls to control some crazy parents in the best interests of children, they decided to punt. Lazy, heartless decision. And I would say that to any of them to their face.
And for anyone that disagrees me, just know that this case only makes attorneys more money at the expense of children and parents.
I personally don't want one cent of that money
I personally don't want one cent of that money
What an odd result, yes the dissent nailed it.
Trial judges have been getting their hands dirty on these types of issues for decades, and no attorney thought any differently of it (except if they lost the hearing they bitched and ranted about it once back at the office). The judges have the power to rule on damn near anything they want to in these types of cases, heck many times they rule on matters that aren't even contained in the pleadings!
The courts now want a three position switch: Mom, Dad, or joint custody. And if you get joint you have to agree on everything, or come back to ask us to change the switch position to Mom or Dad...no nuance.
Trial judges have been getting their hands dirty on these types of issues for decades, and no attorney thought any differently of it (except if they lost the hearing they bitched and ranted about it once back at the office). The judges have the power to rule on damn near anything they want to in these types of cases, heck many times they rule on matters that aren't even contained in the pleadings!
The courts now want a three position switch: Mom, Dad, or joint custody. And if you get joint you have to agree on everything, or come back to ask us to change the switch position to Mom or Dad...no nuance.
I guarantee the ones in the majority have never had a family law practice. It's painful to tell clients there is nothing I can do but start a modification action.
Stupidity at its finest. Best interests of the child(ren) should always be the primary concern.
I'm sorry, it just really hurts me having done hundreds of child custody cases and juvenile court cases and seeing a Court that could care less about the children. I know they will say "we care". But get on the front grounds and see how this plays out.
Get off your ivory tower. The PRACTICE of law in the area of children is ugly. It is hard. It is emotional. These people don't have money to hire an attorney when one parent chooses to be an ass.
Get off your ivory tower. The PRACTICE of law in the area of children is ugly. It is hard. It is emotional. These people don't have money to hire an attorney when one parent chooses to be an ass.
Sometimes I think the Iowa judge rotation system does not serve the public well, and it's really a mess to have family law cases tossed between the different judges, depending on the schedule.
I'm not sure it would be a cure all, but in other states the judge stays assigned to the file so the judges get to know the parents, the children, and the lawyers in the case, and fewer matters go to trial.
I agree. Significant criminal matters get a judge assigned. Family law cases might be appropriate as well. Might require litigants to leave the county though.
Other states deal with it fine. Sure, it gets awkward at the grocery store or if there are kids at the same school, but people deal with it.
Not trying to be argumentative, just sharing my thoughts.
No, not taking that way at all. You are right. Our conservative bench is not thinking with their hearts.
What is the general feeling of the family law section of the state bar? Maybe the entire section council should author a letter?
I'm no longer apart of it. The people like me would agree. The ones that just want to make money probably like the decision.
