Iowa Code » Chapter 600B — PATERNITY AND OBLIGATION FOR SUPPORT
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 600B.31 (2026)

Continuing jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to 28 U.S.C. §1738B, the court has continuing jurisdiction over proceedings brought to compel support and to increase or decrease the amount thereof until the judgment of the court has been completely satisfied, and also has continuing jurisdiction to determine the custody in accordance with the interests of the child. [C73, §4722; C97, §5636; C24, §12667; C27, 31, 35, §12667-a47; C39, §12667.31; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §675.31] C93, §600B.31 96 Acts, ch 1141, §30

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 2006). “§ 600B.31 (stating courts in paternity actions have continuing jurisdiction in paternity actions “to determine the custody in accordance with the best interests of the child”).”
Phillips v. Davis-Spurling, 541 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1995). · cites it 2× “Under Iowa Code section 600B.31, the district court will have continuing jurisdiction over these proceedings, including future decisions regarding child support and “to determine the custody in accordance with the interests of the child.”
Tyler James Long v. Haley Marie Warnke (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015); see also Iowa Code § 600B.31; Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o); Phillips v.”
Eric Emil Groves v. Mynesia Airiona Anderson (Iowa Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 600B.31. Should Anderson pursue that route, we caution her against doing so alone.”
Audas v. Scearcy, 549 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa 1996). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 600B.31. This jurisdiction to modify continues even in light of section 600B.”
Brian McKnight v. Kayla Anderson (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). “§ 600B.31. A petitioner who desires to change a child support award must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that subsequent conditions have so changed that the welfare of the children requires, or at least makes expedient, such modification.”
Wanda Jean Spiker & James Lee Spiker, Vs. Sherry Lynn Spiker & Kelly Keith Spiker (Iowa 2006). “§ 600B.31 (stating courts in paternity actions have continuing jurisdiction in paternity actions “to determine the custody in accordance with the best interests of the child”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.