Family Law Group

The Iowa Supreme Court recently addressed an issue of child custody when one parent was called to military duty. Although not binding authority for Pennsylvania courts, our courts may look to the decision of Grantham v. Grantham if and when they face such an issue.     

Details of the Case
In Grantham , "Father" had primary custody of two minor children pursuant to a dissolution (divorce) decree, but was later called to active duty in the Iowa National Guard. Father planned to have his mother assume custody of the children in his absence, to which "Mother" objected. While Father had initially agreed to let Mother have temporary custody while he was away, he ultimately refused just before leaving, telling Mother that the children would go with their grandmother, his mother, through a finalized military family care plan. When Father left for duty, Mother filed a petition to modify primary custody, a request for a temporary custody order, and a request to terminate her support obligations and instead seek support from Father.

The proceedings commenced while Father was away on duty and, although he was not present for the initial conference or hearing, the district court granted Mother temporary custody of the children. The children remained with Mother while Father was away on duty for nearly a year. Just prior to his full return, the court also awarded Mother permanent physical custody of the children and support after a trial that Father was able to attend. The court of appeals reversed this decision finding that the temporary custody should have been stayed while Father was away and concluding that all of the circumstances justifying a change in custody occurred only after Father's call to active duty.

The Iowa Supreme Court Ruling
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling and affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court held that a stay is not mandated in all cases and that the court must consider the evidence presented by Mother following Father's absence in determining the best interests of the children and adjudicating Mother's request for permanent custody. In initially allowing Mother temporary custody, the Supreme Court heavily weighed evidence that Father had attempted to conceal the arrangement that he had made for his mother to have custody of the children pursuant to a military family care plan and that his military leave necessitated a temporary custody reassignment. In changing permanent custody, the court relied on evidence that Father had maintained a pattern of negative behavior toward Mother, refusing to have any direct communications with her and influencing the children against her. It also considered how the children's behavior toward Mother dramatically improved during their time with her under the temporary custody order.

Implications of the Ruling
In this case, the custody change was precipitated by Father's absence due to military leave. Had Father not been away, Mother would likely not have been able to gain temporary custody and establish evidence for permanent custody.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com