The National Family Law Policy Center puts together guides to assist legislators with understanding sound public policy. Part of this process involves pooling expert resources to create information packets. The following packet is to assist legislators with improving policy in their state. Donations are what support these projects. Please donate today.

TEXAS LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION PACKET

EQUAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN

~ A REFORM LONG OVERDUE ~

“The scientific research documented in 40 studies combined with the consensus of 112 social scientists prove that children desire associating and bonding with both their mothers and their fathers, and children excel and prosper when both parents are equal contributors to their upbringing and well-being, even when the parents live in two separate homes. We assert that the constitution protects a child from having a parent taken without cause and without justification.”

             …with Special Thanks to Texas TFRM and ALFRA                                                                                       

What the Experts Say About Children of Divorce

    Dr. Richard Warshak, The University of Texas

"Parenting plans that provide children with contact no more than six days per month with a parent, and require the children to wait more than a week between contacts, tax the parent-child relationships. This type of limited access schedule risks compromising the foundation of the parent-child bond. It deprives children of the type of relationship and contact that most children want with both parents. The research supports the growing trend of statutory law and case law that encourages maximizing children’s time with both parents. This may be even more important for young children to lay a strong foundation for their relationships with their fathers and to foster security in those relationships."

    112 Social Scientists:                                                                                                                              

“This is ground-breaking to get 112 social scientists to agree – and they agreed that based on the scientific literature, shared parenting should be the norm for parenting plans for children of all ages.” –Dr. Linda Nielsen, Wake Forrest University.

    Senior Texas Appellate Judge:                

“I write separately to express my belief that the standards currently used in making and reviewing orders that have the effect of limiting a parent’s access to his or her children do not reflect the legislative mandate regarding parental access, nor do they adequately respect the scope of the liberty interest enjoyed by a parent in rearing his or her own children. Because of the gravity of the constitutional rights and interests at stake in such proceedings, and because the current standard is based upon outdated notions of parenting that  predate the family code and run counter to the legislature’s stated policy concerning children’s best interests, trial courts should justify deviation from maximum feasible time with both parents by clear and convincing evidence and make factual findings, and appellate courts should carefully review those findings…..Sadly, in many cases, trial courts attempting to dispose of messy divorces as equitably and expeditiously as possible simply automatically adopt the minimum outlined in the standard possession order without considering whether that order will impose limits upon possession and access in excess of those necessary to protect the best interests of the children….. “ --Justice David Puryear, In re JRD, 169 SW 3d 740 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2005, Concurring Opinion.                                                                                                                     

    Chief Justice, Texas Appellate Judge:

“Whatever latitude courts have in setting possession periods, they do not have the discretion to automatically adopt the minimum and ignore the legislature’s explicit directive in section 153.193 to allow maximum feasible time with both parents unless doing otherwise would impair the children’s interests.” --Chief Justice Massey, In re JRD, 169 SW 3d 740 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2005.

    Federal District Court Judge:

The judge is "To safeguard the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit,

free of government intrusion, except in cases of neglect and abandonment,

is to safeguard each child's need for continuity." -- Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 (Dist. Court, WD Michigan 1977) AT 1256, 1257”

What’s Wrong with the Current Possession Policies?

  • Current state policies affect over one million children per year.[1]
  • Last year, 2016, over 100,000[2] children in Texas were impacted by the Texas family courts. The current family court policies drive the loss of one of their biological parents by choosing a parent who is deemed by the court to be the favorable parent.
  • The law fails to protect the child’s fundamental right to freely associate with both parents.
  • The existing possession schedules are rooted in flawed and outdated studies and biases which do not reflect the current consensus of the scientific community.
  • The law fails to align child custody law with current research, which states “equal or approximately equal time-sharing with a minor child by both fit parents is in the best interest of the child.”
  • Currently the Texas Family Code only provides two possession schedules. Neither one of which provides the child the benefits of equal access to both parents. Standard Possession Order (~75/25)/Extended Standard Possession Order (~66/34).
  • The Texas Family Code presumes that the possession schedule which provides the least contact between the child and the non-custodial parent is in the best interest of the child.

Sec. 153.252.  REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.  In a suit, there is a rebuttable presumption that the standard possession order in Subchapter F: (1)  provides reasonable minimum possession of a child for a parent named as a possessory conservator or joint managing conservator; and (2)  is in the best interest of the child.

  • The Texas Family Code’s minimum possession schedule is being used as the default schedule by judges and has become the most common possession schedule order between fit disagreeing parents.
  • The current possession schedules promote a winner / loser struggle where parents are put in opposition to one another to see who will remain a parent and who will be downgraded to a visitor in their child’s life.
  • The family code promotes parental conflict, which is the best predictor of poor outcomes for children of divorce.[3]
  • Current possession orders are perceived as unfair by the non-custodial parent and thus conflict ensues long after the divorce is over.
  • The psychological important attachment bonds with both parents are not possible within the constraints of the existing possession schedules. [4]
  • The current possession model is highly correlated with parental alienation and parental disengagement[5]

(Continued Below the subscription box - Subscribe so that you receive updates.)

Subscribe HERE and receive the entire pdf equal parenting packet for free. Subscribing ensures that you can receive updates to this information.

  • Home
  • Texas Equal Protection Packet

Subscription form

* Mandatory fields
*First name
*Last name
*Email
Phone

Security check

* Code
 
Type the 6 characters you see in the picture
Captcha code image
Hear the code Try another code

TEXAS LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION PACKET (continued)

    Senior Justice David Puryear Concurring Opinion

    Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

    In the Interest of J.R.D. and T.C.D.

    No. 03-04-00311-CV.

    Decided: July 14, 2005

     Concurring opinion by Justice PURYEAR.


    What HB 453 Does

      • 1.               HB 453 would increase child support compliance.[1]

      Amount of Contact with Child

      Received all payments (percent)

      Child had no contact with the other parent in 2013

      32.0%

      Court Ordered Joint Custody

      58.6%


    • 2.              Adds a visitation schedule to the existing two schedules already in place.
    • 3.               Specifies that an equal parenting schedule will be the first choice.
    [1] us census bureau April 2014

    What HB 453 Does Not Do

    • 1.              HB 453 does not remove or affect in any way the strenuous protections the Texas Code has against child abuse or neglect.
    • 2.              HB 453 does not affect a judge’s authority to protect a child.
    • 3.               HB 453 does not change each parent’s duties and responsibilities to their child.


    State of Children in Texas

    Each year, approximately 100,000 children in Texas are subject to orders that restrict them to a minimum amount of time that they can see and spend time with their other fit parent. In 2015, Texas had approximately 2.4 million kids living in a single parent household. Many of these children had a parent taken from them where the parent did not do anything wrong. The perception within society is that the court considers the best interests of the child and makes these decisions for the greater good. When this isn’t the case however, the parent and child can be made to feel very helpless with no remedy.  The Texas Family Code does not correspond with American family values concerning parental involvement in their children’s lives and protection of fundamental family rights between two fit and involved parents. The social science also supports that affecting the integrity of each child-parent relationship without proper caution is possibly the most destructive thing that the court could do to a child. A child of divorce or separated parents could be left to spend a lifetime trying to overcome the loss and deficit of the absent parent. 

    Kids Living in Single Parent Families

    Did you know?

    According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Texas ranked 43rd among the 50 states in overall child well-being based on measures in four categories:

    ·        Health

    ·        Education

    ·        Economic well-being

    ·        Family & community

    According to several surveys and studies…

    • ·        63% of youth suicides[5] (5 times the national average)
    • ·        75% of juvenile drug abuse[6] (10 times the national average)
    • ·        85% of youths in prison[7] (20 times the national average)
    • ·        71% of school dropouts[8] (9 times the national average)           
    • ·        71% of teen pregnancies [9] (9 times the national average)
    • ·        90% of homeless and runaway children[10] (32 times the national average)
    • ·        85% of children with behavior problems[11] (20 times the national average)

    …are children with limited or no contact with their father. (5/6 non-custodial parents are fathers)

    The number of custodial fathers has not changed since 1993 (U.S. Census Bureau).

    Number of Custodial Parents [1] (U.S. Census Bureau)

    1993

    2014

    Mothers

    11,505

    11,069

    Fathers

    2,184

    2,350

                         ©2017 National Family Law Policy Center

                                 

     

    In 2015 approximately 1.9 Million children lived in single-parent homes.

    Shared* Parenting is Linked to Equal or Better Outcomes for Children of All Ages

    According to the summary of 40 Studies on Outcomes for Children, shared parenting can improve Texas’ overall child well-being based on measures in five categories:**

    §  Academic or cognitive outcomes, which include school grades and scores on tests of cognitive development such as language skills;

    §  Emotional or psychological outcomes, which include feeling depressed, anxious, or dissatisfied with their lives;

    §  Behavioral problems, which include aggression or delinquency, difficult or unmanageable behavior at home or school, hyperactivity, and drug or alcohol use;

    §  Physical health and smoking, which also include stress-related illnesses such as stomach aches and sleep disturbances; and

    §  Quality of father-child relationship, which includes how well they communicate and how close they feel to one another.

    * Do not confuse the word "shared" or "joint" with "equal". Just as "separate" was not "equal" during the time of school desegregation, "shared" and "joint" is not "equal" in terms of child custody possession policy. 

    **According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Texas ranked 43rdh among the 50 states in overall child well-being.


    Equal Parenting is Linked to Better Outcomes for Children of All Ages AND the State of Texas

    • Reduction of negative social impact on children to include juvenile detention, teen pregnancies, suicides, school dropouts, drug abuse, sex trafficking, better educational performance, less single-parenting abuse, lower morbidity, etc.
    • Reduction of time required in the court for fights over possession time will free up court dockets for cases regarding child abuse, domestic violence, and criminal cases.
    • Reduction of court dockets can reduce workload and reduce judicial turnover.
    • o   More than 40% of the 880,823 cases filed in district courts were family cases.
    • o   89% of divorce cases were filed in district courts.
    • o   Family cases take the longest to clear off of the courts case load.
    • More fair administration of justice increases satisfaction and decreases court filings:
    • Protection of rights would decrease litigation.
    • Reduction of financial burden on tax payers.
    • Cost savings for Texans and budget savings for Legislature.

    More Possession is Linked to Higher Compliance withChild Support Payments

    • Child support compliance was 90.2% in cases of joint custody;
    • Child support compliance was 79.1% where access to the child was protected by a visitation order; and
    • Child support compliance was only 44.5% where neither joint custody nor access were protected by an order.[1]

    Title IV-D (child support) cases accounted for 40 percent of the 337,387 family cases filed.

    More Parenting time increases child support compliance and decreases the need for enforcement filings.

    [1] Bureau of the Census, CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY: 1989; CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS, Series P-60, No. 173,  September 1991 at 7.  These figures have held relatively constant over time.  The 1995 report found 85% compliance in joint custody cases, 79% compliance where visitation was protected, and 56% compliance where neither joint custody nor visitation was protected.  Bureau of the Census, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers, CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS, Consumer Income, Series P60-187, August 1995.

    MYTHs VS. FACTs

    Myth 1:         Texas already has equal parenting.

    Fact:   Texas Standard Possession Order is a 76/24 split, on a yearly average.  

    Fact: Not even close.

     

    Standard Possession Order for 2017

    Hours in A year

    8760 hrs

    Hours with Non-Custodial Parent

    2060 hrs (24%)

    Nights in a year

    365 nights

    Overnights with non-custodial parent

    80 Overnights (22%)

    But what if we exclude the month of July? The yearly average amount of time for the non-custodial parent drops to 20% and overnights drop to 16%!!

                      

    Modified Standard Possession Order for 2017

    Hours in A year

    8760 hrs

    Hours with Non-Custodial Parent

    2902 hrs (33%)

    Nights in a year

    365 nights

    Overnights with non-custodial parent

    139 Overnights (38%)

    But what if we exclude the month of July? The yearly average amount of time for the non-custodial parent drops to 28% and overnights drop to 33%!!

    Myth 2:        An equal possession order causes instability and confusion for the children.

    Fact:   The Standard Possession Order is far more confusing and distressing than equal parenting. Child caring responsibilities are split nearly equally between cohabitating parents so it is unusual to a child to transfer the majority of child care to one parent.

    • Children strongly favor equal parenting (Fabricius 2003; Finley and Schwartz 2007)
    • Adults who went through divorce as children would have preferred equal parenting [70% of primary residence and 93% of shared parenting arrangements] (Fabricius 2003)
    • Children of primary residence arrangements had feelings of insecurity  and rejection by the non-custodial parent as well as anger towards both parents for not allowing an opportunity for a meaningful relationship with both parents (Fabricius 2003)
    • Primary residence arrangements highly correlated with parental alienation and parental disengagement (Kruk 2010a, Kruk 2010b, Amato, Meyers and Emery 2009)

    Myth/Mis-Information #3: Equal parenting forces kids to live out of a suitcase.

    Fact: A Standard Possession Order requires a child to switch households 12-14 times per month.

    The most common equal parenting schedule (one week with mom, one week with dad) is only 4-6 transfers per month.

    The current standard possession order is 13 exchanges per month.



    Myth/Mis-Information #4: Allowing the children to live primarily with one parent is empirically supported, equal parenting is not.

    Fact: Several studies have demonstrated the CONSENSUS among social scientists condemning our current possession model and agreeing on equal parenting.

    Myth/Mis-Information #4: Allowing the children to live primarily with one parent is empirically supported, equal parenting is not.

    Dr. Warshak from the University of Texas has published an analysis of four decades of research regarding parenting plans entitled “STEMMING THE TIDE OF MISINFORMATION: INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON SHARED PARENTING AND OVERNIGHTING”. The analysis was endorsed by 112 other researchers indicating a consensus among researchers condemning our current presumption that a child should spend the majority of time with only one of their parents.

    Dr Linda Nielsen from Wake Forrest University has published “Shared physical custody: Summary of 40 studies on outcomes for children.” Where she determined from 40 studies that “Overall the children in shared parenting families had better outcomes on measures of emotional, behavioral, and psychological well-being, as well as better physical health and better relationships with their fathers and their mothers, benefits that remained even when there were high levels of conflict between their parents.”

    Additionally, she is about to release similar study “Shared physical custody versus sole physical custody: Summary of 51 studies on outcomes for children”  where she finds that “In 42 of the 51 studies, children who lived in shared physical custody families had better outcomes than children who lived in sole physical custody families.”.


    Equal Parenting and effects on Education

    • Shared parenting results in better academic performance than a primary residence visitation schedule (Holstein, 2015)
    • Children in shared-parenting arrangements achieve far better academic test results than those living in single-parent households where sole custody is in place (Bergstrom, 2015).
    • Research shows that shared parenting would result in fewer cases of truancy, delinquency, gang-related activity, few juvenile crime, and teen pregnancies. (Holstein, 2015)
    • A meta-analysis of 33 studies also reported better emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning for children in joint physical custody compared to children in sole custody, regardless of the level of conflict between parents  (Bauserman 2002)
    • The Stanford Custody Project followed children from 1,100 divorced families over a 4-year period.  In sum, shared parenting was linked to better emotional, academic, psychological, and social well-being over the 4 years, as well as to more enduring relationships with their fathers.(Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992)
    • Of 1,200 families studied, half had shared parenting plans. Three years after their parents’ divorce, the shared parenting children had better relationships with their fathers, and their fathers were more likely (90%) to be involved in school activities than the other fathers (60%). (Melli & Brown, 2008)

    Active Fathers effects on Education

    • Active engagement... and on-going school-related discussions between fathers and their adolescents significantly lowered the probably of school failure when compared to adolescents with less actively engaged fathers (Lamb, M.E. & Kelly, J.B. 2009)
    • Higher levels of paternal involvement in their children’s schools was associated with better grades, better adjustment, fewer suspensions, and lower dropout rates than were lower levels of involvement (Nord, Brimhall, & West, 1997)
    • When a child’s father is actively involved in his or her life, the child has better academic results. (Jones & Mosher, 2013)


    Fatherless effects on Education

    • Father loss after divorce is associated with difficulties in children’s school-based, social and personal adjustment and diminished self-concept. (Parish 1987)
    • There is a decrease in post-divorce academic performance of 30% of the children with absent fathers following divorce. Access to both parents seemed to be the most protective factor in academic performance. (Bisnaire, Firestone and Rynard 1990)
    • 70% of all high-school drop outs come from a single-parent home. (Holstein, 2015)

    5/6 noncustodial parents are fathers


    Equal Parenting Effects on Mental Health

    Divorce is the second most common Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) which predicts health and social problems as an adult. (CDC)

    • ·        Children involved in shared parenting suffer less depression and exhibit less anger, hyperactivity, and delinquency. (Holstein, 2015)
    • ·        Children from shared parenting families were better adjusted (across measures of emotional and behavioral adjustment, self-esteem, …than children in sole residence families, and they were very similar to children in intact families. (Bauserman 2002)
    • ·        Children of divorce in Wisconsin had fewer stress related illnesses as well as less depression and other health problems in shared physical custody compared to sole mother custody (Melli and Brown 2008)
    • ·        Amato (1993) reviewed the literature on frequency of contact with nonresident fathers and children’s well-being and found 15 studies in which frequent contact appeared to benefit academic achievement, psychological adjustment, self-esteem…(Fabricius, W., & Luecken, L. (2007).)
    • ·        In a longitudinal study of post-divorce custody arrangements children in shared physical custody were better off academically, emotionally and psychologically and less stressed ….  (Turunen, J. 2014)
    • ·        The Stanford Custody Project followed children from 1,100 divorced families… the shared parenting children were better off on all measures of emotional, academic, and behavioral well-being… Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992)
    • ·        We can thus conclude that having equally shared residence is associated with markedly lower likelihood of stress for the children (Turunen, J. 2014)
    • ·        Children in shared arrangements experienced much less initial distress at parental separation. Four years later, the children reported in interviews that they had not experienced the feeling of loss of one parent, nor adjustment problems (Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1991).)
    • ·        Children sharing residences equally, have lower likelihood of experiencing high levels of stress.  (Turunen, J. 2014)

    Fatherless effects on Mental Health

    (5/6 noncustodial parents are fathers)

    • ·        The lingering situation of minimal parenting time with fathers for great numbers of children is a serious public health issue. (Fabricius, W., Sokol, K., Diaz, P., & Braver, S. 2012)
    • ·        Adolescents between the ages of 14-19 have higher self-esteem and less depression when they have greater intimacy with their fathers. (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015)
    • ·        In response to the loss of a father after divorce… The three most commonly occurring problems were psychological distress, affecting 69% of the sample, academic problems, affecting 47% and aggression towards parents, affecting 41%. (Legg, Mendell and Riemer 1989)
    • ·        A longitudinal study has shown that father involvement correlates with lower levels of child emotional distress (Ramchandani et al., 2013);
    • ·        Custodial parents overwhelmed by the sole responsibility of care are less physically and emotionally available (Lamb and Kelly 2009; Kelly 2007; Kelly 2003)

    6,474,144 Texans have a mental illness.  This number includes over 5 million adults and over 1.4 million children. (The U.S. Surgeon General)

    211,234 Texans Received Services in the Texas mental health system in 2012: (Texas Department of State Health Services)

    $374,077,387 Funding for Individuals Person Served by the Texas Mental Health System in 2012 (Texas Department of State Health Services)


    Texas Parenting Bills (Proposed - Current)

    • n  TX SCR2 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    • n  TX HB453 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Summary Relating to equal parenting orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.
    • n  TX HB 1617 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to procedures in a suit for dissolution of a marriage or a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Temporary orders during appeal.
    • n  TX HB 1361 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the dismissal of certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship in which the court has rendered a temporary order.
    • n  TX SB 874 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the mandatory dismissal of certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.
    • n  TX SB 1495 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the rendition of certain temporary orders during the pendency of a suit for modification of an order that provides for the conservatorship, support, or possession of or access to a child.
    • n  TX SB 816 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the modification of an order establishing the conservatorship of a child.
    • n  TX SB 816 | 2017-2018 | (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the rendition by a court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship of an order that is contrary to the expressed wishes of the child’s parent.
    • n  TX HB 1899 | 2017-2018 (85th R.S.), Caption: Relating to the rendition by a court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship of an order that is contrary to the expressed wishes of the child’s parent.

     

    Texas Parenting Bills (Proposed - Past)

    • n  2015: HCR 36, Caption: Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was introduced by Rep. Burkett on Jan. 8 and assigned to the House State and Federal Power and Responsibility Committee. STATUS: Died.
    • n  2015: HB 2363 (84th R.S.) Caption: Relating to equal parenting orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. STATUS: Died.
    • n  2013: HCR 38, Caption: Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was introduced by Rep. Burkett in March. It passed the House Committee on State Sovereignty by a vote of 4-1 and passed the House, but could not be brought before the Senate in time.
    • n  2011: HCR 60, Caption: Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, introduced by Rep. Burkett on Feb. 10, passed the House Select Committee on State Sovereignty on April 14 by a vote of 5-1 (with 1 absent). It passed the House May 18, 2011, by a vote of 123-21 (2 pnv, 4 absent). It failed to move quickly through the Senate.
    • n  2011: HB 1229 (82nd R.S.), Caption: Relating to equal parenting orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. STATUS: Failed to receive affirmative vote in committee.
    • n  2011: SB 522 (82nd R.S.) Caption: Relating to equal parenting orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. STATUS: Died
    • n  2007: HB 2927, (80th R.S.), Caption: Relating to equal parenting orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. STATUS: Left pending in committee

    EQUAL PARENTING IN OTHER STATES

    (Texas has none!!)

     

    Arizona 25-403.02(b)

    “Consistent with the child's best interests in section 25-403 and sections 25-403.03, 25-403.04 and 25-403.05, the court shall adopt a parenting plan that provides for both parents to share legal decision-making regarding their child and that maximizes their respective parenting time. The court shall not prefer a parent's proposed plan because of the parent's or child's gender.”

    Minnesota 518.17(a)

     “.. the court must consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including: …..(10) the benefit to the child in maximizing parenting time with both parents and the detriment to the child in limiting parenting time with either parent…”

    Alaska Sec. 25.20.060.

    (c) The court may award shared custody to both parents if shared custody is determined by the court to be in the best interests of the child. An award of shared custody shall assure that the child has frequent and continuing contact with each parent to the maximum extent possible.”

    2016 Missouri 452.375(5)

     “Prior to awarding the appropriate custody arrangement in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider each of the following as follows:

    (1) Joint physical and joint legal custody to both parents, which shall not be denied solely for the reason that one parent opposes a joint physical and joint legal custody award. The residence of one of the parents shall be designated as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes”

    Mississippi  93-5- 24 (1)

    “(1) Custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child:

    (a) Physical and legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections (2) through (7).”

    Nebraska 42-364(3)

    “Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both.”

    South Dakota  25-5- 7.1

     “If the court awards joint legal custody, it may also order joint physical custody in such proportions as are in the best interests of the child, notwithstanding the objection of either parent.”

    Utah 30-3- 10.2

    “(1) The court may order joint legal custody or joint physical custody or both if one or both parents have filed a parenting plan in accordance with Section 30-3-10.8 and it determines that joint legal custody or joint physical custody or both is in the best interest of the child.

     

    Idaho 32-717B.

    "Joint custody" means an order awarding custody of the minor child or children to both parents and providing that physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way as to assure the child or children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents. The court may award either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or both as between the parents or parties as the court determines is for the best interests of the minor child or children. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.”

    Iowa 598.41

    “The court may provide for joint custody of the child by  the parties.  The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best  interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the  child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and  emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated  or dissolved the marriage”

    Louisiana LA Civ Code 132

     “If the parents agree who is to have custody, the court shall award custody in accordance with their agreement unless the best interest of the child requires a different award.

    In the absence of agreement, or if the agreement is not in the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to the parents jointly

    Minnesota 518.175 subd. 5

     “A modification of parenting time which increases a parent's percentage of parenting time to an amount that is between 45.1 to 54.9 percent parenting time is not a restriction of the other parent's parenting time.”

    Washington 26.16.125

    "Henceforth the rights and responsibilities of the parents in the absence of misconduct shall be equal, and one parent shall be as fully entitled to the custody, control and earnings of the children as the other parent, and in case of one parent's death, the other parent shall come into full and complete control of the children and their estate."

     


    Equal Parenting bills proposed across the country this year


    Wyoming HB153

    https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/HB0153/2017

    AN ACT relating to parents; providing for a parental right to direct the upbringing, education and care of a child.

    Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2017. 

    14-2-206 Protection of parental rights - 

    (a) The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, 

    education and care of the parent's child is a fundamental 

    right.

    (b) The state, or any agency or political subdivision 

    of the state, shall not infringe the parental right as 

    provided under this section without demonstrating that the 

    interest of the government as applied to the parent or 

    child is a compelling state interest addressed by the least 

    restrictive means.

    (c) This section shall apply to any state or local 

    law or ordinance and its implementation whether that law or 

    ordinance was adopted prior to or after the effective date 

    of this section. Any statute adopted after the effective 

    date of this section is subject to this section unless it 

    explicitly states that this section does not apply by 

    reference.

    Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply 

    to a parent whose parental rights have been judicially 

    terminated.

    Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2017. 21



    Alabama SB186

    https://legiscan.com/AL/text/SB186/id/1515934

    This bill would create a rebuttable presumption that both parents are fit to make parenting decisions and to have maximum parenting time with their child.”

    Connecticut HB6645
    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/TOB/h/2017HB-06645-R00-HB.htm

    That section 46b-56a of the general statutes be amended to provide that in cases involving the custody of a child, there shall be a presumption that a shared parenting arrangement that provides the parents with equal access to the child is in the best interests of the child, unless the court is provided with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    North Dakota HB1392
    http://www.legis.nd.gov/as…/65-2017/bill-actions/ba1392.html

    In any proceeding dealing with a dispute between the parents of a child over the parental rights and responsibilities over a child, there is a presumption that each parent is fit to care for the child and to make with the other parent joint decisions for the child. In any proceeding in which that presumption is not rebutted, if requested by either parent, the court may not apply the best interest analysis mandated in subsection 1 of this section and shall award each parent equal decisionmaking responsibility and equal parenting time and residential responsibility.”

    South Dakota SB72
    http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Sessi…/Bills/Bill.aspx…

    If joint legal custody is awarded, pursuant to § 25-5-7.1, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that both parents have joint physical custody of their children. Joint physical custody of the children is defined as equal time-sharing. The burden of overcoming the presumption rests on the parent challenging the presumption. The presumption may be overcome by demonstrating that joint physical custody would not be in the best interest of the children by weighing the factors set forth in §§ 25-4A-21 to 25-4A-27, inclusive, or by one

    Iowa HF71
    https://openstates.org/ia/bills/2017-2018/HF71/

    “If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court shall award joint physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either parent, unless the court determines that joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.”

    Kentucky HB492
    https://legiscan.com/KY/bill/HB492/2017

    “In making an order for temporary custody, there shall be a presumption that the parents or a de facto custodian joined under subsection (7) of this section shall have temporary joint custody and shall share equally in 16 parenting time.”

    New Hampshire HB236
    https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB236/id/1441784

    There shall be a rebuttable presumption that shared parenting and shared residential rights and responsibilities are in the best interest of the child or children…..

     “Shared parenting” means an arrangement by which:

    (a)  A child has comparable time with each parent appropriate to:

    (1)  The developmental age and status of the child;

    (2)  The child’s routine schedule of school and other activities;

    (3)  Holidays and other child-centered special events; and

    (4)  The parent’s availability to fulfill parenting responsibilities.

    (b)  The child’s material, developmental, educational, and emotional needs are provided by the parents according to the parents’ individual capability.”

     

    New York SB257
    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/S2577

    SHALL award the natural guardianship,

    charge and custody of such child to [either parent] BOTH PARENTS, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION THAT SUCH SHARED PARENTING WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO SUCH CHILD”

    New York SB2267
    https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/S2267

    The provisions of this act establish a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that shared parenting is in the best interests of minor children.”

    Oregon SB550
     https://legiscan.com/OR/research/SB550 ;

    “It is the policy of this state to: (6) Presume, subject to rebuttal, that equal parenting time is in the best interests of the child.”

    Texas HB453
    https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB453/2017

    “(c)  If the court renders an order appointing the parents joint managing conservators under this section, the court shall enter a possession order under Subchapter F-1 that provides for equal parenting”

    Vermont HB166
    https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/H0166/2017

    To the extent that it is reasonable and in the best interests of the 6 child, the court shall order shared parental rights and responsibilities and equal 7 parent-child contact.”

    Washington HB1554
    https://legiscan.com/WA/research/HB1554/2017

    There is a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child p. 3 HB 1554 1 to establish an equal residential schedule that provides each parent with equal time and contact with the child unless…”

    West Virginia SB189
    https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/SB189/2017

    “The court shall consider granting shared physical and shared legal custody in cases where the parents do not agree to shared custody. If the court does not grant shared custody under this subsection, the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence that shared custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.”


    A Special Letter from Dr. Linda Nielsen

     

    Subject: Shared physical custody research
    From:    Dr. Linda Nielsen
                   Professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology
                   Box 7266  Winston Salem, NC 27109
                  
    www.wfu.edu/~nielsen     nielsen@wfu.edu         

    I am frequently invited to present research seminars to judges, lawyers, mental health workers and legislative committees who are interested in what the empirical studies have concluded about the advantages or disadvantages to children who live in shared physical custody families.

    In my peer reviewed academic journal articles, I have summarized and critiqued all of the existing studies published in English in academic journals that have compared the outcomes for children in shared physical custody to the outcomes for children in sole physical custody. In these research studies “shared physical custody” means that the children live year-round at least 35% and usually 50% of the time with each parent. In contrast, “sole physical custody” means that the children live primarily or exclusively with one parent and spend less than 35% of the time with their other parent.

    The children’s well-being in these studies is measured by standardized instruments and is then assessed using various statistical procedures. The outcomes that have been studied include:  academic performance, emotional and psychological problems (primarily depression and anxiety), physical health, stress related health problems (such as insomnia and stomach aches), the quality of the relationships with parents, stepparents and grandparents, behavioral problems, self-esteem and life satisfaction, and the use of drugs, alcohol, or nicotine.   

    In 42 of the 51 studies, children who lived in shared physical custody families had better outcomes than children who lived in sole physical custody families. In 4 of the 51 studies the outcomes were mixed, meaning that children in shared physical custody did better on some outcomes and worse on others. In 5 of the 51 studies, the children did equally well in both types of families. It is important to note that, in the studies that considered family income and parental conflict before comparing the children’s outcomes, children in the shared physical custody families still had better outcomes.

    Please email me if you would like a copy of any of my research articles.     


     


    Reference List

     

    Nielsen, L. (2011). Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 52, 586-609.

    Nielsen, L. (2013a). Shared residential custody: A recent research review (part one). American Journal of Family Law, 27, 61-72.

    Nielsen, L. (2013b). Shared residential custody: A recent research review (part two). American Journal of Family Law, 27, 123-137.

    Nielsen, L. (2014a). Parenting plans for infants, toddlers and preschoolers: Research and issues. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 55, 315-333.

    Nielsen, L. (2014b). Shared physical custody: Summary of 40 studies on outcomes for children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 613-635.

    Nielsen, L. (2014c). Woozles: Their role in custody law reform, parenting plans and family court. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20, 164-180.

    Nielsen, L. (2015a). Pop goes the woozle: Being misled by data related to child custody and parenting plans. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 56, 595-633.

    Nielsen, L. (2015b). Shared physical custody: Does it benefit children? Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 28, 79-139.

    Nielsen, L. (2017a). Re-examining the research on parental conflict, co-parenting and custody arrangements. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, in press.

    Nielsen, L. (2017b). Shared physical custody versus sole physical custody: Summary of 51 studies on outcomes for children. Under review.

    Nielsen, L. (2017c). Shared physical custody: Are children's better outcomes due to higher family income? Under review.

     

      


    Copyright 2017 The National Family Law Policy Center, All Rights Reserved

    The National Family Law Policy Center is registering as a 501(c) non-profit organization. Corinth Texas 76210
    Powered by Wild Apricot. Try our all-in-one platform for easy membership management