Statutory framework; factor structure: 11, (3)(a)–(k). Subsection 3 of § 598.41 does not apply when the parents agree to joint custody under subsection 4.
Authority
Iowa Code § 598.41(3)
Source framework
Statutory
Factor structure
11, (3)(a)–(k)
Operative language
shall
Catch-all language
none — closed
Presumptions in the original survey
If the court finds a history of domestic abuse, a rebuttable presumption against joint custody arises; an unrebutted finding outweighs the other subsection 3 factors in a custody determination under subsection 2.
"breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved"
Authority
Iowa Code §§ 598.17, 598.19
Grounds without a misconduct showing
"breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved"
Other grounds and proof conditions
none (0)
Separation
none
Timing
Generally, no decree until at least 90 days after the applicable notice event (service of original notice, the last day of publication of notice, or filing of waiver or acceptance of original notice), and until any court-ordered conciliation is completed, whichever period is longer. On written motion supported by affidavit showing emergency or necessity and facts warranting immediate action to protect affected rights or interests, the court may hold a hearing and grant an earlier decree if notice requirements are met. The grounds and facts must appear in the decree unless the court orders otherwise. If the respondent fails to appear within the time in the original notice, the court may find default and waive ordered conciliation (§ 598.19).
The 150-mile provision permits a material-change finding. It does not automatically establish one or decide the child’s best interests.
Authority
Iowa Code 598.21D
Court test
general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)
Burden classification
burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)
Notice classification
no
Trigger classification
mileage threshold
Effect of silence
not addressed in § 598.21D
What the court weighs
No relocation-specific best-interest test in the statute. For a move of 150 miles or more, the court 'may consider' it a substantial change. If it does, the court must modify the order to at least preserve, as nearly as possible, the child's relationship with the nonrelocating parent, and may order extended visitation during summer vacations and school breaks, phone contact, a transportation allocation, and a cash bond where there has been past interference. Whether physical care changes is decided under Frederici and Hoffman: the parent seeking the change must show a material and substantial change and a superior ability to care for the child, with Frederici's relocation considerations (including the reason for the move) weighed.
Who carries the burden
On the parent seeking to modify physical care: preponderance, and a 'heavy burden' to prove a material and substantial change and that they can minister more effectively to the child (Frederici, Hoffman, Lydolph 2021). The relocating parent need not prove the move is in the child's best interests to defeat a physical-care change, but under Frederici a relocating parent who asks to modify visitation carries the burden on that request.
Notice and safety exceptions
Section 598.21D does not contain a relocation-notice period. No general relocation-notice statute identified; individual custody orders may impose notice obligations.
Which moves trigger the rule
Section 598.21D applies when a parent with joint legal custody and physical care, or with sole legal custody, moves the child's residence 150 miles or more from the residence at the time custody was awarded. The statute is permissive. The Court of Appeals holds a shorter move may still count (Lydolph 2021), citing footnote 10 of Justice Waterman's dissent in Hoffman, not the Hoffman majority.
Objections and the effect of silence
Section 598.21D sets no objection deadline or consent-by-silence rule. The other parent may seek modification; a custody order may impose its own notice obligations.
The modification threshold
Discretionary. Section 598.21D says the court may treat a move of 150 miles or more as a substantial change. Lydolph (Iowa Ct. App. 2021) holds a shorter move may qualify on the facts, relying on a footnote in the Hoffman dissent. The Hoffman majority found a 70-mile move did not justify changing physical care on its facts.
Other qualifications
A 150-mile trigger permits, but does not require, a substantial-change finding. Section 598.21D sets no notice or objection procedure.
Important qualification
The 150-mile provision permits a material-change finding. It does not automatically establish one or decide the child’s best interests.
Burden summary
Ordinary modification
Notice summary
No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required
Trigger summary
150 miles (court may treat as a substantial change)
