WATERLOO - Though they are divorced, Jason and Theresa Essmann attend their daughter's events side by side.

When Ashley, 8, finishes a performance or game she never has to choose who to run to first.

Theresa, of Waterloo, and Jason, of Waverly, have shared physical care of their daughter for the last three years.

"It's always been that way, and things seem to work well," Theresa said.

Divorced parents have always been able to request joint physical care of their children. But a under a law that became effective Thursday, judges who decline to offer joint physical care when one parent requests it are required to explain why it is not in the child's best interest.

Proponents of the measure believe it will change divorce culture, equalizing the time children spend with each parent. Some judges and attorneys, however, say it will have little impact, or worse, that children may be viewed as nothing more than a calendar.

Rep. Dan Boddicker R-Tipton, who introduced the change, said too few judges order joint physical placement. Iowa law has allowed judges to grant physical care to both parents since the 1990s.

"Judges often ignore it," Boddicker said.

If one parent resisted, judges would often cite the disagreement as a reason for granting primary physical placement to one parent, he said. Now a judge can consider shared placement despite one parent's objections. A judge denying shared placement must spell out why.

"Given the research out there they would be hard pressed to find a reason," Boddicker said.

Parents can appeal the judge's decision.

In time, the disparity in the amount of time children spend with each individual parent will be reduced, Boddicker said.

Parents share

Jason keeps his daughter overnight every other weekend, every other Thursday night and every Tuesday night. The agreement says Jason will have his daughter overnight in his home six of every 14 days.

It's an exception to the unwritten rule. Traditionally parents are awarded joint custody with one parent having physical placement. The parent without placement then sees the child every other weekend, one other day during the week, and every other holiday.

"It's just not enough time," Theresa said.

Both Jason and Theresa Essman said people need to remember children need both parents.

"I hope people realize that both parents are important to a child and not just a physical placement parent. Neither one is more important than the other," Theresa Essmann said.

Perhaps, she said, the new law will encourage judges to consider different placement arrangements rather than the standard joint custody with one parent, usually the mother, being granted physical placement.

Different interpretations

Judge Jon Fister believes the new law changes nothing. When denying a request for joint physical placement, Fister normally explains his reasons already, he said.

Alan L. Pearson, chief judge of the First Judicial District, agreed the law won't change anything in his courtroom.

"I focus on the facts of a case and what seems appropriate in light of those facts," he said.

Judges are sworn by oath to uphold the law, and Pearson is confident they will.

"The decision itself is I suppose not unanimously accepted as being the right one, but it is the one the governor and the Legislature have chosen, and so it will be respected," Pearson said.

How Pearson will decide cases is not a question. The new law itself raises many, Pearson said.

The provision falls under the divorce section of the law, which could mean it won't affect custody hearings involving unmarried parents. A provision for a college subsidy, for example, only applies to divorced parents.

The provision does not say how stringent the criteria must be to decline a joint placement order.

And the law does not define what joint physical placement is. Psychologists and counselors consider shared placement to be a range above 25 percent in one home and 75 percent in the other all the way up to 50-50, Pearson said.

Until a few cases go to the appellate court, Pearson said, different judges will probably make different decisions.

Tom Langlas, Waterloo attorney and past chair of the family law section of the Iowa State Bar association, agrees.

"There are just a lot of questions," he said. "I think until we get a couple decisions from the court of appeals … we may even have individual judges looking at it differently."

Father's hopeful

Chris Sloan of Waverly, who is going through a divorce, hopes for something more than the traditional child-care arrangement.

Sloan used to bring his son to school. Since the separation, that role is fulfilled by a baby sitter.

Under the temporary visitation arrangement set up before his case goes to court, he sees his children for two hours on Tuesdays and keeps them overnight every other Friday and Saturday. He also sees them for two hours on the Thursdays before the weekends the children spend with their mother.

At times he sees his children a total of just four hours in seven days. Sloan said it's unfair to his children, who are 5 and 2.

"It's such a crucial time right now for the bonds to be solidified," he said.

Sloan said his wife is a great parent; he just wants more time with the children.

Children as a calendar

Daniel Bray of Iowa City, chairman of family law for the Iowa State Bar Association, was against the change.

Judges already had the option to grant shared physical care, he said. The new law gives the perception children are calendars.

Instead of considering what is in a child's best interest and which parent can best meet those needs, parents will come to court demanding equal time.

Bray said shifting from one home to the other can be unsettling.

"The thing that is important to remember is that children …. need consistency, security and continuity possibly even more than they need love," Bray said.

Judge Pearson said many judges agree it is not best for a child to move from home to home. Social science studies, psychologists and counselors suggest a 50-50 division creates instability that shows up in adolescents.

But the Essmanns said their daughter finds stability in her arrangement.

"I'm a believer that it does not matter what bed children sleep in. When they are with their parents, they are as stable as they can get," Theresa said.

The couple put aside differences to ensure their daughter is cared for appropriately, Jason said. Neither one pays the other child support. Jason feels that allows them to concentrate on their daughter's well-being rather than who is paying what.

"I do believe she is a much happier person," Jason said.

Jason has seen what happens to children and parents in different arrangements. He lives with a divorced father who faces more difficult custody issues.

"I know (Ashley) is much better off," he said.

Hope for change

Wendall Bergmann of Waterloo has already gone through divorce. He is waiting to see how judges implement the law before considering any attempt to modify his visitation. He operates on a traditional visitation schedule. He and his ex-wife both have joint legal custody of their daughters. However, his daughters live in Dike with their mother.

"I don't see why I shouldn't have them and spend more time with them," Bergmann said.

Bergmann received a contempt of court charge for picking up his children from a baby sitter at 2:30 p.m. instead of 3:30 p.m. According to Black Hawk County Court records, his ex-wife, Jodi Bergmann, said her daughters and baby sitter were upset by the change.

Bergmann hopes the new law affords fathers more decision-making power and time in regards to their children.

"At least each parent would have equal ground to stand on," Bergmann said.

Bergmann and other fathers say the system is geared against them, so many choose not to seek custody.

Sloan said many good fathers who, put in the unfair situations, become deadbeat dads or are poor parents because they are driven away from their children.

"It's time good fathers had a chance to be good fathers, even after divorce," Sloan said.