ADVERTISEMENT

Here's a win for you divorced fellows

ummm...I've been through it, man. I came in with the same story you guys are repeating, "I'm so scared I will lose my kids, etc. etc." My attorney said immediately I will get 50/50 custody with 0% chance of losing that.

Yeah, ok, your anecdotal story really proves it.

You are missing the point. JOINT CUSTODY is what you are discussing. That is equal custody. Then one parent usually gets Primary Physical Care....i.e. the child living with them.

The most common (BY FAR) scenario in Iowa is: Joint Custody, one parent has Primary, the other has every other weekend visitation and once/week.
 
What if Susie Homemaker has been boning the UPS guy? I know Iowa is a no-fault state but, IMO, that is wrong. I think you'd see a lot less infidelity if people knew they would lose heavy in divorce court if they were found to be a cheating POS.

The Courts don't care about infidelity, nor slowing down or stopping it. What reasons does infidelity have on marital property or accumulation of it?
 
The custody standards in Iowa have changed. Shared care is now the presumption unless it is proven it would be in the best interest of the children to have something different (drug addiction, criminal parent, abuse, etc, etc).
 
Why? You make that decision as a couple and part of that is financial support of her as well as the kids. Why would I want to support someone who I am not married to anymore? There is no couple, no family unit. The kids are hurt by the divorce. I have now lived that as kid and parent. Kids are resiliant thankfully.

I should clarify that I mean 50/50 shared care, not joint legal custody. Yes, you get joint legal custody pretty much no matter what unless you have some bad history.

Its not a happy thing. You move on, you adjust, but its something that still lingers and sucks.

You are reading things into my post that I've clearly distinguished. You wouldn't be supporting someone you aren't married to, you are supporting your children via child support.

I'm disappointed by the bad advice in here. "Yes, you get joint legal custody pretty much no matter what unless you have some bad history." This is completely untrue.

Edit: That is not completely untrue, like the other poster, I presumed/thought he was discussing Joint Physical Care....there is a presumption toward joint custody.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, ok, your anecdotal story really proves it.

You are missing the point. JOINT CUSTODY is what you are discussing. That is equal custody. Then one parent usually gets Primary Physical Care....i.e. the child living with them.

The most common (BY FAR) scenario in Iowa is: Joint Custody, one parent has Primary, the other has every other weekend visitation and once/week.


yup, im lying about the whole thing.
 
You are reading things into my post that I've clearly distinguished. You wouldn't be supporting someone you aren't married to, you are supporting your children via child support.

I'm disappointed by the bad advice in here. "Yes, you get joint legal custody pretty much no matter what unless you have some bad history." This is completely untrue.

Sounds like your attorney sucked.
 
Here is a section from the Iowa Legal Aid page:

"Does the court have to award joint physical custody?When the law was changed in 2004, some people believed that it required the court to award joint physical care unless there were good reasons not to do so. However, the Iowa Court of Appeals has decided that the law does not mean that. The Court said joint physical care is simply one of the choices that the court has. Joint physical custody may be a good choice when it is in the child's best interests and the parents are able to communicate and cooperate with each other."
 
yup, im lying about the whole thing.

No, I believe that in your specific case you may have been awarded what you claim. I am not calling you a liar. You are attempting to speak, statistically, about the entire State. I am attempting to correct you.
 
The Courts don't care about infidelity, nor slowing down or stopping it. What reasons does infidelity have on marital property or accumulation of it?

Yeah, I realize the courts don't care about infidelity. That's why I stated it was my opinion. I just think if there was a consequence to certain behaviors that destroyed marriages you would see more marriages working and society would be better off. Too easy now to just dump your spouse aside and cheat on them with no negative consequences.
 
Any of you who are curious, here is a Iowa Bar "Family Law Update" from 2013. The law that some are discussing was changed in 2004. Go to page 74/110 for the Joint Physical Care section.

Let's see if this pastes properly:

In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) The recent changes in Iowa Code
§598.41(5) do not create a presumption in favor of joint physical care. However, old case
law strongly disfavoring joint physical care are outdated. Each case must be decided on
its unique facts.
 
Yeah, I realize the courts don't care about infidelity. That's why I stated it was my opinion. I just think if there was a consequence to certain behaviors that destroyed marriages you would see more marriages working and society would be better off. Too easy now to just dump your spouse aside and cheat on them with no negative consequences.

True, but should the Courts be doing this? Is it their jurisdiction to try and make society better off? I certainly get your point...unless you are the one cheating, then it is all her f***** fault for being a prude!
 
Here is a section from the Iowa Legal Aid page:

"Does the court have to award joint physical custody?When the law was changed in 2004, some people believed that it required the court to award joint physical care unless there were good reasons not to do so. However, the Iowa Court of Appeals has decided that the law does not mean that. The Court said joint physical care is simply one of the choices that the court has. Joint physical custody may be a good choice when it is in the child's best interests and the parents are able to communicate and cooperate with each other."

Exactly. Unless you are a complete jackass you will get 50% of the time if that is what you want. That was pretty much the exact words out of my attorney, Randy Willman. He is widely considered one of the better divorce attorney's in eastern Iowa, so I will go by his word.
 
You are free to believe whatever you want. For those people in/contemplating a divorce: It is not true that the presumption is joint physical care, nor that you have to be a "complete jackass" in order to lose it.
 
The Hansen case lays out the criteria more or less the courts use when deciding if the Dad will get shared physical care. Its case law. I dont think its as easy to get it in Iowa as jojo says if you work and the ex was a SAHM. I was very involved. I coached them, read to them from when they were little, gave them baths, changed them as babies, put them to bed, etc. etc. etc. A lot of it depended on what judge you got and the stats in Iowa are not in a Dad's favor.
 
I just hate all the lies out there that men are going to get screwed in a divorce. It gets spread everywhere. This was my first concern I brought up to the attorney's I interviewed and each one said the same thing, "This hasn't been the case in the last 20 years." If you are a competent father, have a good attorney, and fight for your rights, you will get 50% time with your kids. Women don't just get handed the kids anymore. I don't know a single good dad who fought for his kids in joint custody, split 50/50 time, and lost. I know some who gave that up as they felt she could care better for them, but if you are a good parent you have no worries. Don't believe this guys BS.
 
Yep. The standard in Iowa is 50/50 and adjustments are made from that starting point.

In the other examples about the stay at home wife. The assumption is that assets accumulated during marriage are marital assets and are divided equitably. What if Susie Homemaker has been boning the UPS guy? I know Iowa is a no-fault state but, IMO, that is wrong. I think you'd see a lot less infidelity if people knew they would lose heavy in divorce court if they were found to be a cheating POS.

On the flip side, would you support the husband getting hammered financially in the same scenario if, instead of SAHM banging the UPS guy, husband is banging the admin at work? If you factor fault in, how much should that cost the guy?
 
Hey JoJo, I'm not pushing that lie. Fathers have a pretty good chance in Iowa, is it completely fair? No, but that isn't because of the penis, it is USUALLY because of the circumstances. Just statistically, the wife is at home more, even if not a stay-at-home-mom, and statistically the wife is doing more of the "parenting", with the kids, bathing, school issues, etc.

I'm not perpetuating the men-get-hosed myth, I've argued against it many times on here. I just don't want guys on here to go the other way, like you are, and think they can relax. Joint Care is not presumed, and it is not the norm. That is all I am saying. You have a much better chance today than prior to 2004, that much is true.

But, anyone here can feel free to listen to the guy who has great anecdotal evidence. The solution is easy, call yourself a lawyer.
 
That isn't what I mean, I am, personally, against spousal support/alimony/maintenance/whateveryouwanttocallit, except in very limited circumstances.

I'm not talking about "retiring in a particular style", I'm just talking about living, and "fairness."

In my scenario the husband, by virtue of working for a longer period of time, earns more and earns it more quickly. If he gets 50%, say $25k, and she gets $25k, he would earn equal to that amount much quicker than her. So who is "better positioned", or who is "worse off" after the divorce? An equitable split may (depending on all factors/circumstances), may lean toward giving her a bigger piece of the pie up front, as he can earn it back quickly.

Think of it like this: he has a head start, a head start based on decisions they made together, but now only he can benefit, so can some of that go her way?

Again, I am against support in the form of, let's just say $1,000/month, and especially not for a specific "lifestyle". It has to be a very specific circumstance for me.
I don't really see a difference between what you say you are for and spousal support. You are advantaging one party at breakup at the expense of the other party. Doing this in one lump sum or as a monthly payment doesn't change my position. IMO I think the assets should be split evenly and they go on to lead their lives. Talking these extraneous factors doesn't seem legit to me. If she should happen to score a new rich husband, should she have to give the money back? What if it was her cheating that caused the divorce? Better to simply treat it like a business and break it evenly between the two shareholders.
 
Because spousal support is for the future. This is a division of assets at the time of the split.

I mean, I see where you are going, but I don't think they are the same. If I had to guess, with obviously no way to show, if you saw specific examples, you would have a different opinion.

Try this example, I'm curious what you would say: Husband agrees to stay at home, no work, with the children, while the wife goes through undergrad and medical school. She grads, gets through rounds, etc. and is now a $200k/year doctor. The husband is an out-of-work, non-educated, house"wife". They have $50k. You give him $25k and a wink?

I've already said that cheating should have absolutely no factoring in the decision. Your last statement treats them as equal shareholder. Many times the shares are not, in fact, equal. I'm sure you can think of examples, but an obvious one would be one spouse who, admittedly, does nothing. Sits around, doesn't work, doesn't raise kids, doesn't clean, does nothing. Are they an equal shareholder in your business example?
 
The Courts don't care about infidelity, nor slowing down or stopping it. What reasons does infidelity have on marital property or accumulation of it?

Breach of contract. Don't marriage contracts call for fidelity. Adultery is no different than cheating in any other kind of contract. There are usually penalties.
 
Because spousal support is for the future. This is a division of assets at the time of the split.

I mean, I see where you are going, but I don't think they are the same. If I had to guess, with obviously no way to show, if you saw specific examples, you would have a different opinion.

Try this example, I'm curious what you would say: Husband agrees to stay at home, no work, with the children, while the wife goes through undergrad and medical school. She grads, gets through rounds, etc. and is now a $200k/year doctor. The husband is an out-of-work, non-educated, house"wife". They have $50k. You give him $25k and a wink?

I've already said that cheating should have absolutely no factoring in the decision. Your last statement treats them as equal shareholder. Many times the shares are not, in fact, equal. I'm sure you can think of examples, but an obvious one would be one spouse who, admittedly, does nothing. Sits around, doesn't work, doesn't raise kids, doesn't clean, does nothing. Are they an equal shareholder in your business example?
Yes, 25k is my solution. What's yours? You going to force the doctor wife to take out loans to pay him in one lump sum of say half a million?

Yes I think even a sloth of a partner is still of equal standing and gets half. If cheating doesn't matter, being worthless can't either.
 
I don't know why the two (cheating/worthless) would be equal. Cheating, on its own, has no effect on the distribution of "responsibilities" (I guess) in the relationship. The wife banging the UPS guy is still doing the other wife-stuff. The guy banging his secretary, the same. The worthless one is, by definition, not doing anything.

But I get your point.

When two people enter in to an agreement, say, "Honey, I will go to college and get a great job, we will be together forever!" And then one helps to support that goal, and then the goal is attained, they don't deserve any fruits of that labor?

Breach of contract. Don't marriage contracts call for fidelity. Adultery is no different than cheating in any other kind of contract. There are usually penalties.

I don't think so. I'd have to pull out my marriage certificate, once I figured out where it was, to actually look.

This was from Google:
tinlismarrcert-t.jpg

Can't really read it, but from what I remember, there are certainly no clauses, or requirements of fidelity. Certain churches certainly require it, like Catholocism, but you can make up any vows you want.

Here is a link to an application, again no clauses for, really, anything.
 
I'm guessing you got screwed with custody and support, huh?

I really don't know how you can read any of my posts and come to that conclusion. But to assuage your curiosity, I am married with children, and have only been married once.
 
I don't know why the two (cheating/worthless) would be equal. Cheating, on its own, has no effect on the distribution of "responsibilities" (I guess) in the relationship. The wife banging the UPS guy is still doing the other wife-stuff. The guy banging his secretary, the same. The worthless one is, by definition, not doing anything.

But I get your point.

When two people enter in to an agreement, say, "Honey, I will go to college and get a great job, we will be together forever!" And then one helps to support that goal, and then the goal is attained, they don't deserve any fruits of that labor?



I don't think so. I'd have to pull out my marriage certificate, once I figured out where it was, to actually look.

This was from Google:
tinlismarrcert-t.jpg

Can't really read it, but from what I remember, there are certainly no clauses, or requirements of fidelity. Certain churches certainly require it, like Catholocism, but you can make up any vows you want.

Here is a link to an application, again no clauses for, really, anything.
I understand verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. So vows probably don't mean anything. Then again, you may have dozens of witnesses so maybe that's not so cut and dry. But if vows don't matter, neither would some personal promise verbally made in the doctor vs. the hubby scenario.
 
I understand verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. So vows probably don't mean anything. Then again, you may have dozens of witnesses so maybe that's not so cut and dry. But if vows don't matter, neither would some personal promise verbally made in the doctor vs. the hubby scenario.

I'm not sure where you went on this. I guess I'm discussing scenarios where that isn't in contention.

How about I tweak the example: No kids, both work. Husband spends a large, say 75%, portion of his income on her education. Same result?
 
I'm not sure where you went on this. I guess I'm discussing scenarios where that isn't in contention.

How about I tweak the example: No kids, both work. Husband spends a large, say 75%, portion of his income on her education. Same result?
Sure. His income is her income in a marriage. I listen to you guys, I know how it works.
 
I really don't know how you can read any of my posts and come to that conclusion. But to assuage your curiosity, I am married with children, and have only been married once.

So, you have no experience in all of this. That's what I figured
 
And if she locked him in a closet the minute he got home from work, walked him around on a leash, and refused to sex him? Same result?
 
The Hansen case lays out the criteria more or less the courts use when deciding if the Dad will get shared physical care. Its case law. I dont think its as easy to get it in Iowa as jojo says if you work and the ex was a SAHM. I was very involved. I coached them, read to them from when they were little, gave them baths, changed them as babies, put them to bed, etc. etc. etc. A lot of it depended on what judge you got and the stats in Iowa are not in a Dad's favor.

This is correct.
 
Okiedokie. Enjoy divorcitude, I hear it is fun.

Congratulations. I wouldn't wish divorce on anyone and I wish you and the mrs. the best of luck.

However, perhaps you shouldn't speak on things you have no frame of reference on. Again, Randy Willman and Sharon Mellon disagree with what you've said here and they are the best divorce attorneys in Iowa city.

I don't know a single, competent, divorced dad who wanted joint custody and didn't get it. On the other hand, I know a few dad's who shouldn't have joint custody and we're able to get it as Iowa is so pro joint custody; guys with addiction problems, gambling problems, and leaving their family for a few months. Getting primary in Iowa is a real challenge. Again, I'll take the attorneys word and my experience, over the word of a married guy from hrot.
 
I did go through the misery of it. If the ex contests shared physical care it's an uphill battle. I admit I settled for 40/60 because I had some fear that I could lose more and the cost to fight on. I regret that somewhat now, but I do see my kids a lot and we have progressed to a decent point. I have a cool GF now and life is good, but like jojo said I would not wish it on anyone. The first 18 months were rough, but you get through it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT