Iowa law clearly states that “parents with joint legal custody” means both parents jointly have legal custodial rights and responsibilities toward their child and neither parent has legal custodial rights superior to those of the other parent. These rights and responsibilities include equal participation in decisions impacting the child’s legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction. Essentially, neither parent has the ultimate right to decide for their child.

Parents often become deadlocked in making decisions regarding everything from extracurricular activities to education, and these issues do not impact only a few families, but many throughout Iowa. Recently, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion tackling when and how district courts may resolve disputes between separated parents over important decisions impacting their children.

About the case

Decided in January 2024, the case involves a dispute between divorced parents Mary and Shannon, both with joint legal custody of their minor children. In this case, the parents disagreed regarding vaccinating their children against COVID-19. The parties attempted to mediate the issue but eventually came to a stalemate.

Mary filed an application for vaccination determination where she asked the district court to allow the children to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Shannon resisted and said the district court did not have the legal authority to act as a tiebreaker between the parents.

After the hearing, the district court denied Mary’s request to have the children vaccinated. The district court explained joint legal custody over the children means equal participation in decisions. The only remedy, according to the district court, was Mary filing a modification of legal custody action with the district court.

Unhappy with the district court’s decision, Mary appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order. The appellate court directed the district court to hear Mary’s application regarding vaccination on the merits and issue a consistent decision with the children’s best interests.

Not satisfied with the Iowa Court of Appeals’ ruling, Shannon asked the Iowa Supreme Court to hear the case and the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review of the case.

Iowa Supreme Court Said…

The issue in this case is one of authority and not of jurisdiction. The district court had jurisdiction over the parties’ decree and any subsequent modifications because Iowa law gave the court such jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court stated the issue is whether Mary properly invoked the district court’s authority by filing an application for determination instead of a petition for modification of the parties’ decree. The Supreme Court found Mary failed to properly commence the action at hand because Iowa’s rules of civil procedure are clear that a civil action is commenced by filing a petition with the court. This means by not filing a petition for modification, Mary overlooked and did not accept the meaning of “joint legal custody” under Iowa law.

Clarifying the parameters of “joint legal custody,” the Supreme Court stated the statutory definition of joint legal custody treats it as an all-or-nothing proposition, where parceling out of certain parenting rights is not allowable. For one parent to have a greater degree of control and ultimate decision-making authority regarding the Iowa Code’s definition of what legal custody entails, one parent must be awarded sole legal custody. Otherwise, one parent in a joint legal custody situation like Mary is asking the district court to diminish Shannon’s right to equal participation in a decision impacting the children’s medical care.

The Iowa Supreme Court continued its ruling by stating Iowa law places parental decisions with the parents and not the courts. This means the district court here and in other cases lacks the authority to make decisions regarding legal custody issues when both parents have joint legal custody. Interestingly, the Court wrote that only when a decree unequivocally provides for later trial court review without the necessity of showing a change of circumstances will they acknowledge the trial court’s authority to hear issues regarding the case; meaning, if the parents with joint legal custody explicitly wanted and stated the trial court would keep some type of decision-making authority in the future.

What does this mean for divorced or separated parents?

In sum, once the decree is final, a parent must seek modification and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that circumstances have so materially and substantially changed since the decree was entered that the requested modification is in the children’s best interests. Here, the fact these parents spent so much time and money fighting over vaccinations could be proof enough that change has occurred.

Regarding the issue of legal custody, the Iowa Supreme Court found Iowa’s statutory definition of “joint legal custody” does not allow Iowa courts to “unbundle” legal custodial rights over certain decisions while the parents maintain joint legal custody. Again, the Court states the issue before them is whether the court has the authority to resolve joint legal custody disputes in the first place. Since the district court post-decree lacks authority to issue a judgment, decree, or other order, it cannot act even if both parties want the court to do so.

Essentially, unless and until a court decree considering legal custody is changed after agreement or trial, Iowa courts are without authority to step into joint legal custody disputes between parents.

If you share joint legal custody with the other parent, then you must make decisions together. If you cannot do so and that becomes routine, then you should decide with your lawyer if filing a petition for modification is appropriate.