Iowa House Bill HF824

Iowa 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/25
• Refer: 5/15/25

Caption

A bill for an act relating to consideration of the educational setting of a minor child in a child custody proceeding.(Formerly HF 347.)

Impact

One of the significant impacts of HF 824 is the introduction of a rebuttable presumption favoring the retention of the child’s existing educational setting from the previous school year, unless evidence suggests otherwise. This presumption is designed to protect the child's stability and educational consistency during custody disputes. The bill mandates that any custody order issued must provide clear information to the educational institution regarding the custodial arrangements, ensuring that schools are kept informed about the custody status of children enrolled there.

Summary

House File 824 relates to the consideration of a minor child's educational setting in child custody proceedings. The bill establishes that in cases where parents disagree on the educational setting of their child, courts are required to take the current educational environment into account when making temporary custody decisions. This includes educational settings such as public schools, charter schools, and private instruction, aiming to ensure continuity in the educational experience for the child. Furthermore, the legislation introduces specific guidelines dictating that custody orders must outline the rights and responsibilities of each parent concerning the child's education.

Contention

While the bill is intended to prioritize the child's educational interests, it may generate points of contention among parents regarding the definition of 'best interest' and the ability to present evidence that counters the presumption of retaining the child's prior educational setting. Critics may argue that the bill could limit parental autonomy in educational choices, particularly in diverse family structures or situations involving non-traditional educational methods. Additionally, legal practitioners may raise concerns about the complexity of accommodating this new standard in ongoing custody cases.