custody requirement in Iowa

2016Moore, 658 F.2d at 221 ; see also State v. Mumbaugh, 491 P.2d 443, 449 (Ariz. 1971) (stating that a finding of no probable cause does not necessarily mean there was no “custody” for purposes of Miranda).

2016Moore, 658 F.2d at 221 ; see also State v. Mumbaugh, 107 Ariz. 589 , 491 P.2d 443, 449 (1971) (stating that a finding of no probable cause does not necessarily mean there was no “custody” for purposes of Miranda).

2019See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696 (highlighting additional considerations listed in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1974)).

2019Dale, 555 N.W.2d at 246 . 8 On our de novo review of the facts and circumstances of this case in conjunction with the custody factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.41(3) (2017)2 and In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 , 166–67 (Iowa 1974),3 we find the 2 The factors include: (a) Whether each parent would be a suitable custodian for the child. (b) Whether the psychological and emotional needs and development of the child will suffer due to lack of active contact with and attention from both parents. (c) Whether the parents can communicate with each other regarding the child’s needs. (d)

2023See Iowa Code § 598.41 (3)(e); Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696 (applying the custody factors listed in section 598.41(3) to physical-care determinations). 10 of an order or decree under this chapter the court may award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an amount deemed reasonable by the court.”); In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2005).

2023The factors we consider include “the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and relative merits of the appeal.” Okland, 699 N.W.2d at 270 (quoting In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Iowa 1993)).

2023The factors we consider include “the needs of the party seeking the award, the ability of the other party to pay, and relative merits of the appeal.” Okland, 699 N.W.2d at 270 (quoting In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Iowa 1993)).

2020But we also rely on the principle that, “in family law matters, past performance is a strong indicator of what is yet to come.” Hensch v. Mysak, 902 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017).

2019See Hansen, 733 N.W.2d at 696 (highlighting additional considerations listed in In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1974)).

2015Id. at 1275.

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 , 109 S.Ct. at 1926 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 545 ; Villa, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344 , 202 P.3d at 433 ; Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) (“We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed.... ” (Alteration and omission in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Rawlins, 182 P.3d at 1277-78 (holding court had jurisdiction when petitioner filed habeas pe

2015See, e.g., Richardson v. Comm’r of Corr., 298 Conn. 690 , 6 A.3d 52, 57-58 (2010) ("We reject the petitioner’s assertion that the custody requirement ... may be satisfied by confinement alone and we reaffirm that a petitioner [must] be in custody on the conviction under attack at the time the habeas petition is filed .... ” (alteration and omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 23 (Tenn.2004) ("Accordingly, we hold that a person is not 'restrained of liberty’ for purposes of the habeas corpus statute unless the challenged judgment itself imp

2014See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”) Additionally, the district court did not award Gerald physical care because Amanda relocated with M.J. or stopped Gerald from visiting M.J.