In re Marriage of Frazier
Shannon L. Frazier seeks further review of the court of appeals decision reversing and remanding with instructions that the district court hear Mary Streicher’s application regarding whether the parties’ children should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The court of appeals found that in order to give effect to Iowa Code section 598.1(3), which defines joint legal custody as neither party having superior custody rights to the other parent, it is necessary for the court to break the occasional disagreement between joint legal custodians. The court further concluded that an application like Mary’s is the appropriate way to request the court to make a tie-breaking determination and such an application is outside the realm of a modification action.
Mary C. Frazier, n/k/a Mary C. Streicher, Petitioner-Appellant
Shannon L. Frazier, Respondent-Appellee
Attorneys for Resister
Jacob R. Koller
Ryan C. Shellady
Attorney for Applicant
Richard A. Davidson
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Oct 10, 2023 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, John Telleen, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. Dissent by Schumacher, J. (12 pages)
Mary Streicher appeals the denial of her application for vaccination determination, in which she asked the district court to determine whether to vaccinate her two children following an impasse with her former husband, Shannon Frazier. OPINION HOLDS: Applications for determination of issues undecided by the original dissolution or custody proceeding are an appropriate and necessary vehicle to invoke the court’s tie-breaking authority. Mary properly invoked this authority. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions that the district court hear Mary’s application on the merits and make a determination consistent with the children’s best interests. DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion that holds a petition for modification was not required when the parents could not agree on a medical decision concerning the children after the entry of an original dissolution decree which granted the parties joint legal custody of their children.