WATERLOO - Harry Whiteside, a toolmaker in Waverly, lives less than two miles from his children. He sees them only four days a month.

As a father who wants to be more involved in their lives, he said that isn't enough.

So in April, he tried to modify his visitation schedule. Recently married again and with a 6-month-old daughter, Whiteside figured he could make a convincing argument his home is a stable environment for his other 6-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son.

His request was rejected.

Whiteside, 35, said he never stood a chance, calling the process a "joke."

It's situations like these that prompted three fathers advocacy groups to propose an amendment, House File 2658, to the existing child custody law. The issue will be debated in the state House this legislative session.

The bill, drawn up by IowaFathers.com, Fathers for Equal Rights and Children Need Both Parents, states courts must presume joint physical care is in the best interest of a child. That is unless physical or emotional harm would come to the child because of the new arrangement. The bill would also force a parent who opposes the arrangement to prove why denying joint physical care would be in the child's best interest.

IowaFathers.com founder Bryan Iehl said the amendment is necessary because some judges - especially those who are less apt to award joint physical custody - aren't following the existing law. That law requires judges to consider joint physical care if one parent makes a request, and to give reasons why if they deny the request.

"I do think (the bill is) taking a little bit of the judge's personal bias out of the equation," Iehl said.

Opponents, which include the Iowa Bar Association and the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, argue the bill, if passed, would make women and children more susceptible to violence. In addition, they maintain the bill is unnecessary because the existing law, passed in 2004, works. They also argue that to truly keep a child's best interests in mind, courts must consider each case individually, instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all standard.

Hot topic

If a public legislative session in Cedar Falls last week is any indication, the bill - thus far overshadowed by the TouchPlay controversy in state politics - will spark heated debate on the House floor.

Citizens arguing for and against the bill dominated the question and answer portion of the session. While IowaFathers.com made an organized showing at the event, several speakers on both sides of the issue stated they came with no intentions of speaking.

"I think it will be a contentious issue when it reaches the House floor," said Nancy Robertson, an attorney with Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who is lobbying against the proposal.

People actively involved in lobbying the bill said the House is split along party lines on the issue. In general, Republicans favor the measure and Democrats are opposed. In passing the bill, the House Judiciary Committee voted 11-9 in favor, with one Republican and one Democrat crossing party lines. It's possible that the bill will come up for debate this week.

At a recebt legislative session, local legislators pledged to look at the bill carefully but most were noncommittal.

The exception was Rep. Don Shoultz, D-Waterloo, who said he would vote against the measure. He said the bill is unnecessary because existing law is effective, citing an Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence study that examined Iowa Appellate Court decisions regarding child custody from January 2004 to March 2006.

The study found out of 121 appealed custody cases, the courts awarded primary physical care to the father more than 50 percent of the time.

"The idea that somehow what the courts are doing now is unfair is a bit misleading," he said.

Joint custody was awarded in only 13 of the cases.

That is likely because the Iowa Supreme Court looks unfavorably upon joint physical care, said Diane Dornberg, Iowa State Bar Association's legislative chairwoman for family law. She said the high court ruled this way because judges believe joint physical care can deprive children of stability and may allow one parent to pit kids against the other parent, which could also undermine disciplinary efforts. The courts said this arrangement also makes financial arrangements, including child support, more difficult to settle and enforce.

Domestic violence

William Downs, a social work professor at the University of Northern Iowa, said abuse is a significant concern in contested custody cases because most studies find about 50 percent involve domestic violence.

"Some of these guys can be very adept at hiding abuse when it comes to being in the court. Often, the mother of the children has been battered and can appear less adept as a mother (in court) because of the stress she's been under," he said.

Robertson, the attorney for the domestic violence coalition, said proving abuse can be difficult. At present, one incidence of domestic abuse may not be enough to reject a joint physical custody request. Robertson also said sometimes a father can complete batterer's education and satisfy a court's concerns over awarding joint physical custody.

Her main concern about the bill is that the measure doesn't specify how much domestic violence is enough to reject the presumption that joint physical custody is best for a child.

"To jump from (current law) to this presumption that makes the proof that's required (to reject joint physical care) much, much higher doesn't seem appropriate," she said.

Michael Fleming, a family studies professor at UNI, agrees proving domestic violence can be difficult. But he said creating barriers for the majority of fathers that are not abusers is not in children's best interest. Instead, he favors strengthening the bill's domestic violence exemption.

Fleming, who supports the proposed bill, said fathers have historically had to advocate for their rights within the court system because it's assumed they don't care as much about being involved in their children's lives.

"A divorce is a dissolution of marriage, not of a parenting relationship," he said.

A father's involvement is important, he said, because studies show it helps a child's development. Children with an actively involved father are better prepared for school, perform better academically and exhibit more positive social behaviors.

"I think children that have fathers involved in their lives have a sense of who they are and security with themselves," he said.

Relationship key

People on both sides of the issue can agree on one thing: Parents who truly have their children's best interests in mind won't have use for child custody laws.

Fleming said the key to raising healthy, well-adjusted kids is for the mother and father to create a quality co-parenting relationship where they agree on a visitation schedule and support each other in their parenting roles.

Dornberg, the Iowa State Bar Association attorney, said parents who really have the interests of children in mind would do well to consider a bird's nest arrangement. In that scenario, the children are the ones who live in a permanent residence and parents take turns moving in and out of the home.

The situation is considered ideal for children because some, especially younger kids, find the instability of moving from one residence to another stressful.

Contact Jens Manuel Krogstad (319) 291-1580 or jens.krogstad@wcfcourier.com.