IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KUETER, 705 N.W.2d. 107 (IA 2005); In this ruling, the Court of Appeals grants Joint Physical Care. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed as Modified and Remanded.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MUNGER, 705 N.W.2d. 340 (IA 2005); In this ruling, the Court of Appeals grants Joint Physical Care.  Decision without published opinion. Affirmed at Modifiied and Remanded.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ELLIS, 705 N.W.2d. 96 (IA 2005); In this ruling, the Court of Appeals modified to award joint physical care and remanded for further proceedings.

Rush vs. Wilmington, 715 N.W.2d 769; 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 861;  In this ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed Joint Physical Care.

In re Marriage of Stevens, 725 N.W.2d 658; 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 1959; In this ruling, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, to award joint physical care despite poor communication.  In this ruling, the Court of Appeals also states, "We believe the court’s statement of reasons rejecting joint physical care appears to reflect a generalized disfavor of the very nature of such arrangements." 

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF HANSEN, 733 N.W.2d. 683 (Iowa 2007; The ruling establishes a "check list" or criteria for attorneys and parents regarding joint physical care.  Currently, this is the most referenced case in child custody proceedings.

In re Marriage of Berning, 743 N.W.2d 872; 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 2053; In this ruling, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED and awarding of Joint Physical Care for the final decree despite Shari having primary physical placement during the temporary order.

In re Marriage of Hite, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 1228;  In this ruling, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED, to award Joint Physical Care stating, "the record reveals two loving and capable parents who placed the children’s needs first and successfully implemented a joint physical care arrangement for several months prior to trial. We conclude joint physical care was in the children’s best interests. We modify the decree to provide that the parents shall exercise joint physical care of the children."

Steven A. Buschbom v. Merry G. French, 752 N.W.2d 33; 2008 Iowa App. LEXIS 958; In this ruling, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED an awarding of Joint Physical Care post Hansen stating, "While no longer disfavored, there is no presumption favoring joint physical care. Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 692. Any consideration of physical care must “be based on Iowa’s traditional and statutorily required child custody standard—the best interest of the child.” Id. at 695. The advantage of the best interests standard is that it provides flexibility to consider the unique custody issues of each case. Id. at 696...we must remember that our overriding goal is to look to the best interests of the child. Custody and physical care are neither a reward nor a punishment for the parents. By all accounts, the son is doing well under the current arrangement. We will not disturb the court’s decision to continue the joint physical care arrangement."

Dietz v. McDonald, 760 N.W.2d 210; 2008 Iowa App. LEXIS 1706; The Iowa Court of Appeals Affirmed a District Court Order with graduated visitation that ultimately results in joint physical care between unwed couples.  The Court stated, "Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in ordering graduated visitation that will culminate in the parties’ joint physical care of Maverick."