Primary care parent

[bugsmom18]

What is the name of your state? IOWA

I share joint physical custody of my daughter (3 yrs) with ex but have primary care. Am now in a serious relationship, b/f has a 4 yr old daughter. My daughter loves spending time with both of them and talks about them to her dad. My b/f is a race car driver and has a motorhome/hauler that we all ride to the races in. My ex said that he will take me to court to take away custody if I allow my daughter in it. Does he have this right to say what vehicle I allow my daughter to ride in? It is basically a motorhome with the problem being that the girls (my & b/f's daughters) are not in car seats. They are not allowed to run around while driving down the road and must stay seated. I agree that the best situation would be for them to be in car seats, but then again, it isn't really different than riding a school bus, etc. I think the ex is making a big fuss because he doesn't like b/f and it's obvious how much my daughter does, jealousy. I can understand that, I guess. But the lectures about safety are absurd coming for a guy who does not insist that my daughter is strapped in the car seat in his truck (she sits in it) or 4 wheeler rides since she was a baby....

 

[stealth2]

Well...... I'd have an issue if my 3yo was riding in a vehicle w/o a car seat.

 

[Zephyr]

is it possible to make the car seats work in the rv? then it's safer for the kids and takes the fuel out of your exes fire...

 

[bugsmom18]

We're checking into how that can be done (add seat belts in the back). But the areas in the part where they do ride is a couch which rolls out into a bed, a table with two built-in seats and a bed above the driver's head (which they are not allowed on). In the meantime, what can he do about it? I understand the concerns about no car seat but that wasn't what I was asking.

 

[CJane]

I would guess that it wouldn't be all that difficult for him to prove child endangerment if it's the law in your state that children of a certain age be in safety/booster seats. I don't know if the laws differ for RVs or not, but it's worth checking into.

Whether he lets them ride on ATVs is irrelevant. There aren't seatbelt laws for ATVs, and as far as I know, no age restrictions either.

 

[bugsmom18]

Thanks for the info. I dug around enough to find what the Iowa law states. And since it is a registered motorhome, we are ok. I'm still looking into how we can install some type of seat belt in the back, however.

FYI:

Iowa Law 321.446 Child restraint devices.
1. a. A child under one year of age and weighing less than twenty pounds who is being transported in a motor vehicle subject to registration, except a school bus or motorcycle, shall be secured during transit in a rear-facing child restraint system that is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
b. A child under six years of age who does not meet the description in paragraph "a" and who is being transported in a motor vehicle subject to registration, except a school bus or motorcycle, shall be secured during transit by a child restraint system that is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
2. A child at least six years of age but under eleven years of age who is being transported in a motor vehicle subject to registration, except a school bus or motorcycle, shall be secured during transit by a child restraint system that is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or by a safety belt or safety harness of a type approved under section 321.445 .
3. This section does not apply to peace officers acting on official duty. This section also does not apply to the transportation of children in 1965 model year or older vehicles, authorized emergency vehicles, buses, or motor homes, except when a child is transported in a motor home's passenger seat situated directly to the driver's right. This section does not apply to the transportation of a child who has been certified by a physician licensed under chapter 148 , 150 , or 150A as having a medical, physical, or mental condition that prevents or makes inadvisable securing the child in a child restraint system, safety belt, or safety harness.
4. a. An operator who violates subsection 1 or 2 is guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to the penalty provisions of section 805.8A , subsection 14, paragraph "c" .
b. During the eighteen-month period beginning July 1, 2004, and ending December 31, 2005, peace officers shall issue only warning citations for violations of subsections 1 and 2, provided the operator is, at a minimum, in compliance with the provisions of subsections 1 and 2, Code 2003. A peace officer may issue a citation for a violation of this section or section 321.445 , as applicable, to an operator who is not in compliance with section 321.446, subsections 1 and 2, Code 2003, in regard to a child under six years of age, or section 321.445, Code 2003, in regard to a child at least six years of age but under eleven years of age. This paragraph is repealed January 1, 2006.
5. A person who is first charged for a violation of subsection 1 and who has not purchased or otherwise acquired a child restraint system shall not be convicted if the person produces in court, within a reasonable time, proof that the person has purchased or otherwise acquired a child restraint system which meets federal motor vehicle safety standards.
6. Failure to use a child restraint system, safety belts, or safety harnesses as required by this section does not constitute negligence nor is the failure admissible as evidence in a civil action.
7. For purposes of this section, "child restraint system" means a specially designed seating system, including a belt-positioning seat or a booster seat, that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 571.213.
84 Acts, ch 1016, §1; 86 Acts, ch 1069, §1; 2000 Acts, ch 1133, §11; 2001 Acts, ch 132, §11; 2001 Acts, ch 137, §5; 2004 Acts, ch 1113, §2 , 3
For education program requirements and compliance assistance requirements, see 2004 Acts, ch 1113, §4
Subsections 1, 2, and 4 amended

 

[Silverplum]

And do you ONLY travel in Iowa? No races elsewhere?

I think this one is a loser for you, and a winner for your X. Restrain the kid. Period.

 

[bugsmom18]

Only travel in Iowa.

3. This section does not apply to peace officers acting on official duty. This section also does not apply to the transportation of children in 1965 model year or older vehicles, authorized emergency vehicles, buses, or motor homes, except when a child is transported in a motor home's passenger seat situated directly to the driver's right. This section does not apply to the transportation of a child who has been certified by a physician licensed under chapter 148 , 150 , or 150A as having a medical, physical, or mental condition that prevents or makes inadvisable securing the child in a child restraint system, safety belt, or safety harness.

 

[Silverplum]

You can highlight sections of Part 3 till the cows come home, and it still SEEMS as if all you care about is frolicking with your boyfriend. This may or may not be true...but *I* most assuredly would not go to court and let the judge or mediator (who will BE my judge or mediator for YEARS to come) know that I think it is more important to reel around Iowa in a motor home with my boyfriend than to properly care for my child.

You know, as well as I do and anyone else here does, that your child is NOT SAFE in that motorhome without restraint. The only reason you are arguing the point is because your X made it. How grown-up is that? How responsible is that? If I were the judge/mediator, I'd kick your butt for your attitude toward your child.

For Pete's sake, get the seatbelts installed and move on. It's your CHILD'S SAFETY at stake. Dad is right.

And, if BF's any kind of racer, he'll be traveling outside of IA very soon. So don't play cutie-pie with the highway safety laws. Or leave your kid with her dad...he, at least, seems to give a hoot for her safety.

 

[LdiJ]

You can highlight sections of Part 3 till the cows come home, and it still SEEMS as if all you care about is frolicking with your boyfriend. This may or may not be true...but *I* most assuredly would not go to court and let the judge or mediator (who will BE my judge or mediator for YEARS to come) know that I think it is more important to reel around Iowa in a motor home with my boyfriend than to properly care for my child.

You know, as well as I do and anyone else here does, that your child is NOT SAFE in that motorhome without restraint. The only reason you are arguing the point is because your X made it. How grown-up is that? How responsible is that? If I were the judge/mediator, I'd kick your butt for your attitude toward your child.

For Pete's sake, get the seatbelts installed and move on. It's your CHILD'S SAFETY at stake. Dad is right.

And, if BF's any kind of racer, he'll be traveling outside of IA very soon. So don't play cutie-pie with the highway safety laws. Or leave your kid with her dad...he, at least, seems to give a hoot for her safety.

That is not a legally valid answer.

The legally valid answer is that the law does not require the child to be in a child seat in a motor home. Therefore neither dad nor the judge can do anything to stop her from transporting the child in a motor home.

The judge/mediator cannot "kick her butt"....because the law does not allow for that particular "butt kicking".

Plus, since dad doesn't even strap her into the car seat in HIS vehicle....its pretty obvious that dad is raising a stink about this due to jealousy rather than safety issues.

 

[Silverplum]

Maybe not, LdiJ, maybe not. But go ahead and tell me that the judge is going to be IMPRESSED with this woman.

Personally, I think the OP is counting on the wrong section of that law. I think the kid falls under Item 1-B.

Furthermore, I think the poster IS fighting the issue ONLY because the DAD brought it up. She hasn't spent an iota of energy on restraining the child properly...she's spending her energy and time on fighting dad. What does that really say about this mother?

 

[djohnson]

That is not a legally valid answer.

The legally valid answer is that the law does not require the child to be in a child seat in a motor home. Therefore neither dad nor the judge can do anything to stop her from transporting the child in a motor home.

The judge/mediator cannot "kick her butt"....because the law does not allow for that particular "butt kicking".

Plus, since dad doesn't even strap her into the car seat in HIS vehicle....its pretty obvious that dad is raising a stink about this due to jealousy rather than safety issues.

I'm agreeing with this. That is the law no matter what anyone's personal opinion is. And for what it's worth, even though I think carseats are musts and truly believe in them there are occasions where it just can't be done. We too have camped in an RV and there isn't seatbelts in the back for kids. On several occasions we have rented limo's to go to concerts and there isn't sufficient seat belts and we have made an exception. It may not be the safest thing in the world, but there are worse things you could do. I will probably get blasted, but that is my thoughts.

 

[LdiJ]

Maybe not, LdiJ, maybe not. But go ahead and tell me that the judge is going to be IMPRESSED with this woman.

Personally, I think the OP is counting on the wrong section of that law. I think the kid falls under Item 1-B.

Furthermore, I think the poster IS fighting the issue ONLY because the DAD brought it up. She hasn't spent an iota of energy on restraining the child properly...she's spending her energy and time on fighting dad. What does that really say about this mother?

No, she is not relying on the wrong section of the law. She is reading the law correctly. As far as the judge being "not impressed"...the first thing the judge is going to research is whether or not the law requires the child to be in a car seat when riding in a motor home.

If its not required...the judge can't make any orders about it.....because mom is complying with the law.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Using that logic...

We should petition the school boards and take court action because our children aren't restrained on school buses either. I think kids milling around on a school bus while it's in motion is a tad more dangerous than children sitting in a seat in a motorhome without a safety belt. Of course, I'm just anal like that.

Of course, school buses are excluded under the statute.... just like motor homes are. Most school buses are not made with seat belts, just like most motorhomes aren't.

No law is being broken by the child not being restrained in the motorhome, just like on the school bus. And dad would be fighting a losing battle if this is the best thing he has for a reversal of custody threat.

 

[haiku]

this Iowa law is pretty standard in any state. ( I had this issue once, involving a big truck going cross country)

As a parent, you may want to consider outfitting all able seats in a motorhome, big truck, or old car, with proper safety belts for kids, but it is not legally required, and no laws are broken by NOT doing so.