Our Mission

To improve the lives of children &

strengthen society by protecting every
child’s right to the love & care of both
parents after separation or divorce. We
achieve this mission through three core
program areas: research & reports, public
awareness, and family court reform.

2025
LOREM IPSUM

Shared Parenting
Report Card
Advancing children’s well-being by championing equal
shared parenting when families live apart.

www.sharedparenting.org
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................1

SHARED PARENTING TRENDS................................................................................................... 2

Single Parenting Versus Shared Parenting..................................................................... 2

Social Science Consensus................................................................................................3

Parental Alienation and Shared Parenting.......................................................................4

Public Opinion Consensus................................................................................................ 5

Reception by the Legal Community................................................................................. 6

Legislative Changes Since 2019...................................................................................... 6

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REPORT: LIMITATIONS AND CAVEATS....................................... 9

Subject Matter................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations & Caveats.......................................................................................................11

Parenting Time Enforcement....................................................................................11

False Allegations of Family Violence...................................................................... 12

METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 13

Process............................................................................................................................. 13

Key Statutory Provisions................................................................................................. 13

Definitions........................................................................................................................ 14

ABOUT NATIONAL PARENTS ORGANIZATION....................................................................... 16

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 18

APPENDIX A: MAP - GRADES BY STATES............................................................................... 21

APPENDIX B: LISTING - STATES BY GRADES.........................................................................22

APPENDIX C: STATE DETAILS..................................................................................................23

 1 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Executive Summary
The National Parents Organization seeks to promote children’s well-being by making equal shared parenting
the norm when parents are living apart. There is a compelling and growing consensus among researchers that
true shared parenting by separated parents is usually best for children, including infants and toddlers, even
when there is (non-violent) conflict between the parents and even when the parents do not initially agree to
shared parenting. And the benefits to children increase as they have more equal time with each of their fit and
loving parents. All of this research supports the establishment of a rebuttable presumption of equal shared
parenting when parents are living apart.

To determine the degree to which state legislatures had absorbed and acted on this consensus about what
parenting arrangements work best for children when parents are living separately, in 2014 NPO undertook the
first ever evaluation of states’ statutory provisions promoting shared parenting. NPO issued an updated and
enhanced report in 2019. This 2025 Report details the progress made since 2019.

A handful of states have made very significant progress in the past 6 years—enacting strong legal
presumptions of equal shared parenting. Several others have taken positive, though less dramatic, steps
toward improving outcomes for children of divorced and separated parents. Unfortunately, the current
study found that, despite the research that now strongly supports the desirability of a legal presumption of
equal shared parenting, most state legislatures have taken no significant steps toward protecting children’s
relationship with both parents when parents are living apart.

The 2025 NPO study shows significant improvement in states’ shared parenting legislation:

SUMMARY: STATE GRADES

Grade 2014 2019 2025 Change 2025 vs 2019

A 0 2 6 4
B 8 7 10 3
C 18 26 19 -7
D 23 14 14 0
F 2 2 2 0

Average D+ C- C

NPO calls on those states with weak statutory provisions concerning shared parenting to review the research
on the well-being of children whose parents are separated and to enact statutes creating a rebuttable
presumption of equal shared parenting. Such presumptions are not only supported by the research on child
well-being, they are also overwhelmingly supported by citizens and have proven successful and popular in
the states that have adopted them. Children are entitled to the presumption that both of their fit and loving
parents will continue to be fully engaged in their upbringing regardless of whether or not the parents are still
living together.
 2 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Shared Parenting
Trends
Single Parenting Versus
Shared Parenting
Extensive research going back decades has found
that the approximately 25% of children (more than
18 million) living in single parent families not only
fare worse in terms of psychological and emotional
well-being, physical and mental health, labor market
and wealth accumulation outcomes, but are more
prone to social pathologies such as child abuse,
crime and substance abuse [1]–[9]1.

Children raised with the active engagement of two

fit parents are less likely than their peers raised with
only one involved parent:
• to fail in school [10];
• to use illegal drugs [5], [11];
• to commit crimes [12]-[15];
• to become involved with gangs [16], [17];
• to experience sexual assault [18];
• to engage in early sexual activity [19];
• to become pregnant at an early age [19]; and,
• to die by suicide [20].

The societal cost of single-parent families is enormous. When two fit parents are willing to act as parents,
keeping them both involved equally in the raising of their children is not only good for the children, it’s good
social and economic policy.

Shared parenting following divorce/separation has been consistently shown to produce better child outcomes
than sole custody arrangements along multiple dimensions: academic or cognitive outcomes, emotional and
psychological outcomes including depression, stress and self-esteem factors, behavioral problems including
substance abuse, physical and mental health, and improved parent-child relationships [21]-[24].

For parents, shared parenting is significantly correlated with increased child support compliance and reduced
parental conflict and domestic violence. (See below.) Shared parenting allows both parents to pursue their
careers, social lives and other interests without the burden of single-handedly raising a child.

1
Citations are indicated in brackets and references are listed below.
 3 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Social Science Consensus

The social science community has embraced shared parenting in increasingly stronger terms in recent years
culminating in a recommendation for the adoption of a rebuttable legal presumption of shared parenting:

• 2013: The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) published the recommendations of
32 family law experts. The group concluded, “Children’s best interests are furthered by parenting
plans that provide for continuing and shared parenting relationships that are safe, secure, and
developmentally responsive and that also avoid a template calling for a specific division of time
imposed on all families” [emphasis added]. While these experts hedged their conclusions with
many caveats and qualifications, they nevertheless stated that, “[c]onsidered as a body of work,
the efficacy of shared parenting has been supported for children of preschool age and older.” They
also stated, “Parents who choose these arrangements [shared parenting] have reported that their
children are better adjusted across multiple measures than their sole-custody or step-family peers”
[25].

• 2014: Endorsed by 110 international experts, the “Warshak Consensus” paper concluded that
“shared parenting should be the norm for parenting plans for children of all ages, including young
children [recognizing] that some parents and situations are unsuitable for shared parenting” [26]
(emphasis added).

• 2018: Following the 2017 International Conference on Shared Parenting, twelve international
experts published a paper stating: “The evidence is now sufficiently deep and consistent to permit
social scientists to provisionally recommend presumptive SP [shared parenting] to policy makers
… these statements are explicitly made guardedly … We might aptly characterize the current state
of the evidence as “the preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., substantially more evidence for the
presumption than against it). A great many studies, with various inferential strengths, suggest that
SP will bestow benefits on children on average, and few if any studies show that it harms them” [27]
(emphasis added).

• 2019: Research published in the prestigious Oxford Handbook of Children and the Law provides
compelling evidence that it is not only when parents agree to shared parenting that this parenting
arrangement is in children’s best interest. The research shows that “a legal presumption of equal
parenting time is in children’s best interest, because such a presumption is likely to strengthen the
emotional security of children of divorced and separated parents and thereby have a widespread
positive impact on public health” [28] (emphasis added).

• 2021: Research from Arizona State University provides strong evidence that the better outcomes for
children in shared parenting arrangements are caused by the sharing of parental responsibilities and
not a result solely of the fact that parents who choose to engage in shared parenting are, in general,
better educated and have higher family incomes [29], [30].

• 2023: At its 6th International Conference on Shared Parenting, the International Council on Shared
Parenting (ICSP) concluded: “On the basis of current research evidence, social scientists can now
confidently recommend presumptive shared parenting to policy makers. Shared parenting now has
enough evidence that the burden of proof should fall to those who oppose it rather than those who
promote it” (“Press Release and Conference Conclusions, May 12, 2023”).

• 2023: The most recent and thorough systematic review of research on children’s outcomes in post-
separation living arrangements concluded that 75% of the studies conducted found that children
raised in shared physical custody had outcomes equal to those raised in nuclear (intact) families.
 4 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Children raised in sole physical custody arrangements had the worst outcomes. They concluded
that the better outcomes resulted from the children’s relational and economic resources from both
parents [23].

• 2024: Groundbreaking research from Spain provides strong evidence that presumptions of shared
physical custody reduce intimate partner violence between separating parents. Around 2010, five
regions of Spain adopted presumptions of shared physical custody; other regions did not adopt
similar presumptions. The results of this “natural experiment” were stunning! The researchers found
that the presumption of shared physical custody “led to a large and significant decrease in intimate
partner violence, with the largest effects among couples in which the mother was more likely to seek
sole custody before the policy change” (p. 1, emphasis added). The policy “significantly decreased
domestic violence, with IPV falling by almost 50%” (p. 3, emphasis added). And they also found
“evidence of a significant reduction of the number of female homicides committed by intimate
partners after the joint custody reform” (p. 3, emphasis added) [31].

As one leading researcher put it:

The evidence that is now available is compelling that failure to enact presumptions of equal
parenting time risks unnecessary harm to children’s emotional security with their parents,
and consequently unnecessary harm to public health in the form of long-term stress-related
mental and physical health problems among children of divorce. [28]

For links to recent, peer-reviewed research on child well-being and post-separation parenting arrangements,
please visit NPO’s Shared Parenting Research Resources page.

Parental Alienation and

Shared Parenting
Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a
child—usually one whose parents are engaged in a
high-conflict separation or divorce—allies strongly
with an alienating parent and rejects a relationship
with the other parent, the “target” parent, without
legitimate justification. Alienating behaviors
include: issuing poisonous messages to the child
about the other parent, portraying that parent as
unloving, unsafe, and unavailable; undermining the
authority of the other parent; limiting contact and
communication between the child and the targeted
parent; erasing and replacing the targeted parent
in the heart and mind of the child; encouraging
the child to betray the targeted parent’s trust; and,
undermining the authority of the targeted parent
[32]. (More information on parental alienation can
be found at the site of the Parental Alienation
Study Group, PASG, at www.pasg.info.)
 5 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Child victims of parental alienation experience disrupted social-emotional development, lack of trust in
relationships, social anxiety, and social isolation. They are more likely than their peers to be truant from
school or leave school early, be unemployed as adults, abuse alcohol and drugs, enter intimate partnerships
earlier, get divorced, and become alienated from their own children. Because of this, many consider parental
alienation to be form of child abuse [33], [34], [35].

Estimates of the number of children subjected to parental alienation vary widely, ranging from 11% to 40%
of children in contested custody cases [36]. Recent research has estimated that “the number of alienated
children … represents about 1.3% of the total U.S. population,” [36] which would be approximately 4.5
million children. Because of the harm inflicted on children by parental alienation, South Dakota has explicitly
recognized the harm of parental alienating behaviors by establishing as a negative factor in custody decisions
“[w]hether a parent has intentionally alienated or interfered with the other parent’s relationship with the child”
(S.D. Codified Laws § 25-4A-24(9)).

Shared parenting of children by separated parents can be protective against parental alienation. Joint legal
custody combats messages that the target parent doesn’t have typical parental authority. Shared physical
custody reassures children that both parents are safe, loving, and available to the child by ensuring the child
sufficient time in the care of each parent to directly experience this.

Legal presumptions of shared parenting can be protective against parental alienation in another way, also.
Sometimes a parent engages in alienating behavior as part of a campaign to ensure that the parent can retain
custody of the child. Presumptions of equal shared parenting can alleviate the fear of losing one’s relationship
with one’s child as a result of being designated a “noncustodial parent”.

Public Opinion Consensus

Public support for the practice of shared parenting and for a legal presumption of shared parenting is
extraordinarily strong. Independent polling in 29 states has shown that, in every state polled [37]:

• At least 87% (and an average of 95%) of citizens believe it is “in a child’s best interest to spend as
much time as possible with each parent” and that “children have a right to spend equal or nearly
equal time with both parents” when the parents are divorced or separated.

• An average of 80% of citizens believe that “when there is conflict between parents, awarding sole
custody of children to just one parent increases that conflict.”

• At least 80% (and an average of 86%) would support “a change in state law that creates a rebuttable
presumption that shared parenting is in the best interest of a child after parental separation.”

For state-specific results, visit National Parents Organization’s “Shared Parenting Polling” page.

It is important to note that this level of support—extraordinary in a time of extreme political division­-cuts
across the divisions of American politics. Support for equal shared parenting and a legal presumption of equal
shared parenting is extraordinarily strong regardless of race, age, political leanings, and (importantly) gender.
These results are consistent with international polls, which show an average of 75% support for shared
parenting [38].

Independent polling in Kentucky, after it enacted the nation’s first explicit presumption of equal parenting
time, found that those in the Bluegrass state were six times as likely to support the law as to oppose it [39].
 6 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Finally, there is increasing evidence that shared parenting is becoming a voting issue. In every state polled
since 2020, at least 80% (and an average of 93%) of respondents said that they would “be more likely to vote
for a candidate who supports children spending significant, up to equal, amounts of time with each parent
following separation or divorce” [38].

Reception by the Legal Community

While some in the legal community have resisted the enactment of presumptions of equal shared parenting,
there is both research data and anecdotal evidence that, once enacted, such presumptions receive support
from the legal community. In Arizona, approximately five years after enactment of its shared parenting law,
researchers found that the law was evaluated positively by mental health practitioners, attorneys, judges, and
conciliation court staff [40].

Judges in Kentucky were initially skeptical about its 2018 equal shared parenting law. But after operating
under the law for six years, Judge Mica Wood Pence of Kentucky’s Barren County Family Court reports the
following:

First of all, let me just warn you, we were not happy—as lawyers, as judges. That was the
year I took the bench after ten years practicing custody and family law. But boy was I
wrong! It has been an absolute blessing to be able to see people become more active in their
children’s lives. What were we thinking before when using a system that only gave one
parent every other weekend and one day a week? That’s just not enough time with your
children—not if you’re a good parent. And oftentimes children do have two good parents
that love them and want to spend time with them. … One of the biggest benefits is how much
the family can come together. … I think it’s actually cut down on the time in court. … Now
we’ve seen that there’s not as much reason to fight. [41]

Legislative Changes Since 2019

There has been significant legislative activity concerning child custody in many states since the 2019 NPO
Shared Parenting Report Card. The following milestones summarize the progress made in the adoption of
shared parenting nationally since 2019:

• In 2021, Arkansas became the second state (after Kentucky) to enact an explicit rebuttable
presumption that “joint custody is in the best interest of the child” (A.C.A. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(a)).
Existing statutes defined ‘joint custody’ as “the approximate and reasonable equal division of time
with the child by both parents individually as agreed to by the parents or as ordered by the court”
(A.C.A. § 9-13-101(a)(5)).

• In 2022, West Virginia created “a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, that
equal (50-50) custodial allocation is in the best interest of the child” and also stipulated that, when
the presumption is rebutted, courts shall “construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the
time each parent has with the child and its consistent with ensuring the child’s welfare” (W. VA. Code
§48-9-102a).
7 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

• In 2023, both Florida and Missouri enacted rebuttable presumptions of equal shared parenting.

· Florida law now contains “a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in
the best interest of the minor child” (FLA. STAT. § 61.13(2)(c)1.). Florida law further specifies that
a “court shall order that the parental responsibility for a minor child be shared by both parents
unless the court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child” (FLA.
STAT. § 61.13(2)(c)2.)

· Missouri law now specifies that “[t]here shall be a rebuttable presumption that an award of equal
or approximately equal parenting time to each parent is in the best interests of the child (MO. REV.
STAT. § 452.375.2).

• Several states made lesser but still significant steps toward promoting shared parenting.

· Minnesota: As a result of National Parents Organization’s work with the American Academy of
Matrimonial Lawyers and Minnesota State Bar Association, Minnesota enacted a statute that
strengthens its policy statement on shared parenting and creates a new mechanism for enforcing
parenting time orders that requires expedited hearings, presumptive compensating time for the
children with the aggrieved parent, and a presumptive fine for the violating parent (MINN. STAT. §
518.175.6).

· New Hampshire: As a result of NPO’s extensive work with both legislators and shared parenting
advocates in New Hampshire, Governor Sununu signed into law HB185, which strengthened the
state’s shared parenting laws (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 461-A:2 & § 461-A:6,I-a). While the original
version of the bill was, unfortunately, amended to significantly weaken it, the new law does require
courts to make findings of fact to support their orders when they conclude that
approximately equal parenting time is not in the best interest of children.

· Oregon: In 2019 Oregon enacted SB318, which explicitly granted courts the power
to award equal parenting time. It further specifies that: “If a parent requests that the
court order equal parenting time in the parenting plan, the court may deny the request
if the court determines, by written findings, that equal parenting time is not in the best
interests of the child or endangers the safety of the parties” (ORS § 107.102).

· Texas: In 2021, Texas enacted SB1936 that increased the standard parenting time
order for parents living within 50 miles of each other
so that the children have more than 40% of their time
in the care of the noncustodial parent (TEX. FAM.
Code Ann. § 1153.3171).

· Utah: In 2021, Utah enacted SB122, which changed

the advisory schedule that is presumed to be in
children’s best interest to be “the minimum parent-
time to which the noncustodial parent and the child
shall be entitled” and explicitly allowed courts to
order equal parenting time (UTAH CODE ANN. §
81-9-206). In 2022, Utah enacted SB243, which
increased the parenting time for the noncustodial
parent in the advisory schedule, established an
enhanced optional schedule, and provided a
schedule for equal parenting time (UTAH CODE ANN.
§ 81-9-3, § 81-9-302, and § 81-9-305).
8 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

• Since January, 2019, there have been a total of 227 bills proposing significant advances in shared
parenting legislation introduced in 41 states. Thirteen of those bills have been enacted into law.

• The average state grade of ‘D+’ in the 2014 Report Card rose to ‘C-’ in 2019 and now stands at a ‘C’.
This indicates continuing progress in the role that state legislatures can play in reforming the norms
of separated parenting to make shared parenting the norm.

SUMMARY: STATE GRADES

Grade 2014 2019 2025 Change 2025 vs 2019

A 0 2 6 4
B 8 7 10 3
C 18 26 19 -7
D 23 14 14 0
F 2 2 2 0

Average D+ C- C

• The 2025 Report card shows improved grades since 2019 for 8 states. Four of those changes
resulted from reassessment of the 2019 grades. These changes were relatively minor. The improved
grades for the other four states—Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia (highlighted in the
table below)—resulted from significant positive legislation, moving each state from the ‘C’ range to
the ‘A’ range.

SHARED PARENTING STATES WITH IMPROVED GRADES

Grade
State Reason
2019 2025

Arizona A- A+ Reassessment
Arkansas C+ A- Legislation
Florida C+ A Legislation
Missouri C+ A- Legislation
Tennessee C B- Reassessment
Texas C- B- Reassessment
Utah C B- Reassessment
West Virginia C- A+ Legislation

Average C+ A-

• The states with the most shared parenting bills introduced during the period 2019-2025 are:
Minnesota (22), Missouri (16), New York (13), Indiana (12), and Florida (11). Sixteen states had at
least 5 shared parenting bills introduced in this period.

• The least active shared parenting states with no shared parenting bills introduced in the past 5
years are: California, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin. It should be noted that no shared parenting legislation was introduced in Kentucky
 9 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

because, as a result of NPO’s efforts led by Matt Hale, in 2018 Kentucky was the first state to enact
an explicit presumption that equal shared parenting is in children’s best interest

• The lowest ranked states with an ‘F’ grade remain Rhode Island and New York. Rhode Island has not,
since 2014, introduced any shared parenting legislation that would have changed its grade in the
NPO Report Card, whereas New York is one of the battleground states with 22 bills introduced since
2014 and, as mentioned, 13 since 2019.

The federal government does not track shared parenting statistics. However, survey data from the World
Health Organization (WHO) suggests the prevalence of shared parenting in the US is in the 20-25% range
[42]. Research papers indicate the prevalence of shared parenting at state level is: Wisconsin- 45%; Arizona -
44%; Washington - 34%; and California – 27 % [42].

Increased adoption of shared parenting in the US is part of a global trend in industrialized countries. In 2015,
the Council of Europe (COE) passed a resolution encouraging European countries to adopt shared parenting
legislation [43]. The state of affairs was summarized by the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of
Europe in 2018: “There is however an apparent, growing consensus that, when possible, shared parenting
should be supported as part of separation and divorce arrangements” [44].

The International Council on Shared Parenting (ICSP) is preparing a European Shared Parenting Report
Card modeled on this NPO Report Card. This will allow for more sophisticated comparative analysis of child
custody statutes in other countries.

Subject Matter of the Report:

Limitations and Caveats
Subject Matter
National Parents Organization is committed to promoting the well-being of children by working to ensure that
equal shared parenting of children of separated parents is the norm. To contribute to that objective, we have
undertaken a review of the shared parenting statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. What is
ultimately of most importance to children is how separated parenting is actually done, not what is enshrined
in statute. But the statutes play a vital role in influencing the actual parenting arrangements of separated
parents.

In every state, judges have the discretion to order shared parenting if they choose to. Unfortunately, they do
this infrequently unless both parents present the same plan for shared parenting of their children. In most
states, regrettably, custody decisions by the family courts are not properly reported, so information on the
subject is often unreliable and incomplete. Thus, it is not possible to determine, with confidence and across
all states, the actual prevalence of shared parenting orders.

But how separated parenting is actually done is strongly influenced by court decisions which, in turn, are
strongly influenced by a state’s case law and statutory provisions. Like NPO’s previous Shared Parenting
Reports, this study is not a study of the actual parenting patterns of separated parents in each state. Nor is it
a study of the actual court determinations or the case law (binding court decisions) of the states. Instead, it
is a study of the statutory provisions relating to shared parenting of each of the 50 states and the District of
Columbia.
 10 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

In short, this is a report card for state legislatures, not state courts.

Court decisions are (supposed to be) constrained by statutory provisions and binding case law. The role of
case law in determining court decisions about parenting arrangements of divorced and separated parents
varies from state to state. New York, for example, has no statutory provisions that allow for shared parenting.
But a court decision in Braiman v. Braiman (44 N.Y.2d 584; 378 N.E.2d 1019) serves as legal precedent that
has allowed family court judges to order this arrangement in some cases. This is less powerful than statute,
since family court judges can depart from case law precedent if they can cite an allegedly relevant distinction
between the precedent and the case at bar; it is more difficult to contravene an explicit statute.

It is important to recognize that there can be a gap between statutory provisions and actual court decisions. A
state could have relatively weak shared parenting statutory provisions but, because of binding case law or the
judgments of individual courts, a stronger practice of supporting shared parenting. Evidence from Wisconsin,
for example, indicates increasing levels of shared parenting orders from courts even in the absence of new
shared parenting legislation [45]. Conversely, we are aware that some states have relatively strong statutory
provisions that are being diluted by the courts’ use of their broad discretionary powers to limit shared
parenting.

While there can be a gap between a state’s shared parenting statutes and the actual decisions of courts in
that state, the statutory provisions are extremely important, for at least two reasons. First, most courts do
follow the statutes of their states to the best of
their ability. And, second, it is through its statutory
provisions that a state speaks most directly and
clearly to its citizens about how they will be
treated in the courts and the legal expectations
to which they will be subject. This is increasingly
important as more and more parents come to
domestic relations courts without legal counsel.
These parents are unlikely to have sophisticated
knowledge of legal precedents and court practices.
But they can be informed about clear statutory
provisions that promote equal shared parenting.

The 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report Card

evaluates the shared parenting statutes of each of
the states and the District of Columbia and grades
them on the degree to which they foster children’s
best interest by promoting equal shared parenting.
It does not evaluate a state’s case law nor does it
evaluate the actual custodial decisions of courts.
 11 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Limitations & Caveats

This report does not include two factors that are relevant to evaluating states’ statutory support for shared
parenting: (a) statutory provisions for addressing parenting time interference (interference with custody); and
with one exception, (b) statutory provisions for addressing false allegations of family violence made knowingly
or recklessly in order to affect custody decisions. The exception is this: the current study does score a state’s
statutes in part on whether, if they establish a presumption of shared parenting, they also provide a family
court remedy for knowingly making false allegations of family violence. When state statutes do this, it is
typically by making such actions a negative factor in custody determinations. Future NPO Shared Parenting
Report Cards might include provisions for parenting time enforcement and expanded analysis of provisions
for false allegations of family violence as grading factors. For this report, though, we offer some notes and
examples of strong legislation to handle these issues.

Parenting Time Enforcement

A parenting time order fails to achieve its intended effect if there are inadequate legal tools for addressing the
conduct of a noncompliant parent. Contempt actions against a parent for depriving a child of court-ordered
time with one of their parents have proven ineffective; they are costly, time consuming, and seldom provide
a significant deterrent unless the violations are egregious and repeated in the face of previous contempt
findings. Clearly, a broader range of tools matched to the severity of the parenting time interference is
required for timely and less costly enforcement to prevent a downward spiral in the relations between the
parents.

For relatively minor cases, which can often be harbingers of much more severe cases, one tested approach
is Family Access Motions, pioneered by Missouri (MO REV STAT § 452.400). These motions are designed
to be filed pro se, must be acted on within 60 days, and include as potential remedies compensating time,
a small fine, mandatory counseling, and more. By providing a right-sized tool for addressing common forms
of parenting time interference, Family Access Motions establish an effective deterrent to misconduct. New
Hampshire has also created Family Access Motions similar to Missouri’s (N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 461-A:4-a).

Several states have provisions for remedies similar to Missouri’s Family Access Motions, some including
Missouri’s expedited hearing requirement, but lack the pro se friendly approach that helps make Missouri’s
Family Access Motions effective. See, for example: Florida FLA. STAT. § 61.13(4)(c) (which also allows
sanctions for parents who do not exercise their court-ordered parenting time), Illinois 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. §
607.5, Kansas KAN. STAT. ANN. § 23-3401, and the recently enacted Minnesota MIN. STAT. § 518.175.5.)

There are several other approaches for addressing relatively minor cases. For example, California empowers
courts to award financial compensation “when a parent has been thwarted by the other parent when
attempting to exercise custody or visitation rights contemplated by a custody or visitation order” (CAL.
FAM. CODE § 3028). And Texas has enacted legislation empowering municipalities and counties to adopt
ordinances that impose civil penalties for violations of the state’s interference with custody laws (TEX. FAM.
Code Ann. § 157.551). Several Texas cities, including Laredo, El Paso, and League City, have adopted such
ordinances to help protect their children’s right to their court-ordered time with each of their parents.

More egregious violations of parenting time orders should be met with more significant enforcement
mechanisms, including criminal interference with custody actions. In most states, interference with custody is
a crime, chargeable either as a misdemeanor or a felony.
 12 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Sometimes parenting time is interfered with based on false allegations of child maltreatment. Courts are
understandably motivated to react quickly upon allegations of child abuse or neglect. In most states, when
these allegations turn out to be false, the children never recover the time with the targeted parent. In
2024, Texas pioneered an innovative approach to addressing strategic use of false allegations of abuse to
interfere with parenting time by enacting SB718, the “Time Taken, Time Taken Back” law, which provides
for compensating time when the children have been deprived of time with one parent because of false
allegations of abuse (TEX. FAM. Code Ann. § 157.168).

False Allegations of Family Violence

NPO supports presumptions of equal shared parenting that are
rebuttable, which also has support from the scientific community
[29]. Descriptions of the presumptions of shared parenting
supported by NPO as “automatically awarding shared parenting,”
or “requiring courts to award shared parenting” are both inaccurate
and highly misleading. What courts are required to do is begin
with the presumption that equal shared parenting is in children’s
best interest. This presumption can be rebutted on a variety of
grounds—some mundane, like the distance between the parents’
homes, others are more significant, such as a history of family
violence (both intimate partner violence and child maltreatment).

Courts are required, then, to identify cases involving family

violence and act to protect potential victims. This, in turn, requires courts to determine the
veracity of allegations of family violence. The frequency of false allegations of family violence
is hotly debated. One large-scale study found that 25% of child maltreatment allegations in
child custody cases were not only unfounded but made with malicious intent, meaning that they
were intentionally reported by a person knowing the allegation was unfounded [46]. There is
evidence that presumptions of equal shared parenting that can be defeated by concerns about
family violence are likely to lead some parents, seeking to avoid sharing physical custody of their
children, to lodge false allegations of family violence for strategic reasons [40].

The extant evidence indicates that presumptions of equal shared parenting are actually
protective of potential victims of family violence [31], [47]. It is nevertheless vital for courts to identify abusive
parents and protect potential victims. Part of doing so is ensuring the veracity of allegations.

Those who lie to the courts under oath are, of course, guilty of perjury. However, the threat of a perjury
prosecution is not a credible deterrent for false allegations because such prosecutions are virtually never
pursued for lies in domestic relations cases. Several states’ legislatures have recognized this and taken steps
to effectively deter parents from knowingly making false allegations of family violence.

One approach is to explicitly list knowingly making a false allegation as a negative factor in custody
determinations. Several states do this: Florida (FLA. STAT. § 61.13(3)(n)), Hawaii (HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-46(b)
(16)), Maine (ME. REV. STAT. TIT. 19-A § 1653.3.O), Minnesota (MINN. STAT. § 518.17(b)(6)), North Dakota
(N.D. CENT. CODE. § 14-09-06.2.l), and South Dakota (S. D. Codified Laws § 25-4A-24(14)).

NPO believes that including as a negative factor in custody determinations whether a parent has knowingly
or recklessly made false allegations of intimate partner violence or child maltreatment helps to serve as an
effective deterrent, which has several benefits. It lowers the level of conflict between the parents making
shared parenting function better. It reduces the work on the courts pursuing false allegations made for
 13 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

strategic reasons. And it enhances the credibility of such allegations when they are made. Additional tools are
needed, though, to ensure that allegations known to be false and made for strategic reasons do not deprive
children of contact with a fit and loving parent.

Finally, the “Time Taken, Time Taken Back” law in Texas discussed above (TEX. FAM. Code Ann. § 157.168)
not only provides a remedy for the enforcement of parenting time but has the salutary effect of removing an
incentive for making a false allegation of abuse.

Methodology
Process
In its 2019 NPO Shared Parenting Report Card, National Parents Organization’s research team evaluated the
child custody statutes of each state and the District of Columbia on 21 factors to evaluate the degree to
which the statutes promote true shared parenting. The coded factors were converted to a shared parenting
grade for each state using a weighted factors algorithm. This grade was reported for each state, together
with the strengths and weaknesses of that state’s child custody statutes.

Because the metrics and methodology employed in this 2025 report are identical to those used in the 2019
report, the NPO research team reviewed the child custody statutes of those states that had enacted relevant
legislation since 2019. To determine which states had updated their child custody statutes, the research team
relied on data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and Legiscan, as well as other sources.
Several states were re-evaluated in light of newly acquired information concerning their custody statutes. The
research team did not review legislation that did not create a significant change in the metrics used, which
are outlined below.

Key Statutory Provisions

National Parents Organization’s research team looked at the complete language of the child custody statutes
of each state that had changed their child custody laws since 2019. To arrive at a grade for each of these
states, the research team employed the criteria used to evaluate states in the 2019 report.

• Permission: Do the statutes explicitly permit shared parenting?

• Policy: Do the statutes include a policy encouraging shared parenting?

• Preference: Do the statutes express a preference for shared parenting? Do the custody statutes
recognize and reward a parent’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and
continuing relationship between the other parent and the child, which is known as the “Friendly
Parent Factor”?

• Presumption: Do the statutes establish a rebuttable presumption that shared parenting is in

children’s best interest even when parents do not agree?2 If so, is there a clear exception for cases
of domestic abuse? And are judges required to justify deviations from the rebuttable presumption? If
there is a presumption in favor of shared parenting which is defeated by findings of domestic abuse,
are there family-court-based provisions to deter maliciously motivated false allegations of abuse?

2
A presumption in favor of shared parenting only when parents agree is really a presumption of the fitness of parents to determine how
their children will be raised—an appropriate deference to parental judgment. It is not a presumption of shared parenting. Furthermore, a
presumption in favor of shared parenting when the court independently finds that shared parenting is in children’s best interest is not a
presumption about what is in children’s best interest. It is, in any case, an unnecessary presumption because courts are universally required
to determine custody of children based on the best interest of the children.
 14 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Definitions
• Best Interest of the Child: This phrase is ubiquitous in family law but states have struggled
to define it. Most states provide a list of factors that courts may, or must, consider in determining
what post-separation parenting arrangement is in children’s best interest. But they do not indicate
the significance of each factor and courts have extremely broad discretion in determining what
arrangements best promote the well-being of children. Different family courts, presented with the
same facts, come to very different decisions about what promotes a child’s best interest. And these
decisions are too often not guided by a strong understanding of the research on the well-being of
children of separated parents.

The strong emerging consensus in child development research changes this landscape. We can now
say that shared parenting by fit parents living separately serves the best interest of children in most
cases. And this determination is robust, based on a wide range of national and international studies,
using different methodologies, and different accepted metrics of child well-being.

• Equal Shared Parenting: ‘Equal shared

parenting’ refers to the separated parenting
arrangement in which parents have joint legal
custody and substantially equal parenting time
(physical custody) of their children.

• Frequent and Continuing Contact:

This phrase, and similar ones (“frequent and
meaningful”, “frequent and significant”, etc.)
occur frequently in family law. They express an
intention of the court regarding contact between
a child and each of its parents. Unfortunately,
it has no identifiable meaning. In some cases,
ongoing contact as little as one day per month
between a parent and child, or one week
during the summer, has been held to satisfy
a requirement for “frequent and continuing
contact.”

• Friendly Parent Factor: Language in a

custody statute that recognizes that a parent’s
willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage
(in the absence of abuse) a close and continuing
relationship between the other parent and the
child promotes the best interest of the child.

• Legal Custody: A status conferred by the

court that allows a parent, either solely or jointly,
to make decisions concerning the best interest
of the child. Most researchers recognize that
legal custody without a very significant portion
of physical custody is typically of little value to
the child or the parent.
15 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

• Maximizing Time Provision: Several states seek to promote shared parenting by stating
either a preference or presumption in favor of “maximizing each parent’s time with the children,” or
words to this effect. Research indicates that in Arizona this provision is being interpreted strongly, as
a presumption of equal physical custody [41]. However, it is not yet clear that courts in other states
would treat it in this way.

• Parental Equality: Treatment of the parents as equals in terms of child-rearing rights and
responsibilities, regardless of gender.

• Physical Custody: A status conferred by the court that allows a parent to participate in the
residential parenting of their child, either solely or jointly.

• Rebuttable Presumption: In the context of this discussion, this phrase indicates statutory
language that prescribes a particular arrangement for parenting children, but which can be overcome
by a sufficient showing of evidence justifying a different arrangement. With respect to shared
parenting, NPO endorses a rebuttable presumption that equal shared parenting is in children’s best
interest so as to keep the focus of custody decisions on the best interest of children.

• Shared Parenting: National Parents

Organization defines ‘shared parenting’ as an
arrangement in which both parents have equal
standing in the raising of their children, so that the
children may benefit fully from the loving bonds
shared with both parents. ‘Shared parenting’ also
means that the children enjoy substantial parenting
time (not less than one-third) with each parent.

• Temporary Orders (Orders Pendente

Lite): Temporary orders are those issued by the
family courts early in the divorce or separation
process, before there has been an opportunity to
hear evidence concerning the best interest of the
child. They apply to the family during the pendency
of the legal proceedings. Temporary orders are
very important for at least three reasons. First, they
are imposed at a critical period, when parents and,
crucially, children are trying to figure out how post-
separation parenting will happen. Second, while
temporary orders do not establish a legal precedent
for permanent orders, they do establish a de facto
status quo. When courts impose sole custody during
temporary orders and parents don’t agree on shared
parenting, the parent wanting shared parenting is in
the position of asking the court to impose permanent
orders that have not been tried. Some courts are
reluctant to do this. Finally, divorce actions can
easily take six to 30 months or more to complete.
What is temporary to the court, and to adults in
general, will seem quite extended to children given
their different perception of time.
 16 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

About National Parents Organization

Mission
National Parents Organization’s mission is to improve the lives of children & strengthen society by protecting
every child’s right to the love & care of both parents when divorced or separated.

Vision
The overarching goal of National Parents Organization (NPO) is to promote shared parenting by educating
parents, divorce professionals, and legislators and by reforming family courts and laws in every state. We
envision a society where:

• Shared parenting when parents are separated or divorced is the norm;

• Children’s natural right to be nurtured & guided by both parents is fully honored;

• Society treats fathers & mothers as equally important to the well-being of their children;

• Children are happier & more successful because their loving bonds to their parents and extended
family are protected after parental separation or divorce; and,

• The courts arrange finances after separation or divorce so that both mothers & fathers can afford to
house and care for their children & themselves.

More information about National Parents Organization can be found at SharedParenting.org

 17 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

National Parents Organization Board of Directors and Officers:

Board of Directors
Donald C. Hubin, PhD, Chair of the Board, Ohio

Matt Hale, MBA, Kentucky

Cam Huffman, BS, West Virginia

George Piskor, SM, MASc, LLM, PEng, Ontario, CA

Linda Reutzel, Missouri

Director of Operations: Lianna Verrette

Report Card Team

The principal authors of this study are:

• Donald C. Hubin, PhD. Professor Hubin is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at The Ohio
State University and the Founding and Emeritus Director of the Ohio State University Center for
Ethics and Human Values. Dr. Hubin also serves as Chair of the National Board of National Parents
Organization and as a member of the Board of the International Council on Shared Parenting. He
is a co-author of NPO’s 2022 Child Support and Shared Parenting Report Card. Dr. Hubin is the
corresponding author ([email protected]).

• George Piskor SM, MASc, LLM, PEng. Mr. Piskor is an international family law reform
advocate. After serving as a military officer, he was Founder/President of a Hi-Tech Management
Consulting firm. He serves on the National Board of National Parents Organization and as a member
of the Board of the International Council on Shared Parenting. Mr. Piskor is also a co-author of NPO’s
2022 Child Support and Shared Parenting Report Card.
 18 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

References
[1] National Fatherhood Initiative, “Statistics Tell the Story: Fathers Matter.” [Online]. Available: https://
www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2025.]

[2] National Institute of Justice, “What Can the Federal Government Do to Decrease Crime and Revitalize
Communities,” US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Oct. 1998.

[3] J. Härkönen, F. Bernardi, and D. Boertien, “Family Dynamics and Child Outcomes: An Overview of
Research and Open Questions,” European Journal of Population, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 163–184,
May 2017.

[4] A. Goisis, B. Ozcan, W. Sigle, “Child Outcomes After Parental Separation Variations by Contact and
Court Involvement.” London School of Economics and Political Science, Great Britain, and Ministry of
Justice, London: Ministry of Justice, 2016.

[5] S. McLanahan, L. Tach, D. Schieider, “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual Review of
Sociology 39(2013)399-427; Lundbert, Shelly, “Father Absence and the Educational Gender Gap,”
IZA Discussion Papers, No. 10814, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn.

[6] R. O’Neill, “Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family,” Civitas, London, UK, Sep. 2002.

[7] P. Lersch & J. Baxter, “Parental Separation during Childhood and Adult Children’s Wealth,” Life Course
Centre, St. Lucia, AU, 2015–15, Jul. 2015.

[8] D. Lykken, “Psychopathy, Sociopathy, and Antisocial Personality Disorder,” in Handbook of

Psychopathy, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2018, p. 22.

[9] “Statistics—the Fatherless Generation.” [Online]. Available: https://thefatherlessgeneration.

wordpress.com/statistics/. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2025.]

[11] J.P. Hoffmann, “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002)314-330;

[12] J. Bronte-Tinkew, K.A. Moore, R.C. Capps, & J. Zaf, “The Influence of Father Involvement on Youth
Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents: A Comparison of Native-Born and Immigrant Families,”
Social Science Research, 35(2004)181-209.

[13] S. Demuth & S.L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: The
Significance of Parental Absence Versus Parental Gender,” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 41-1(February 2004)58-81;

[14] C. Bush, R.L. Mullis, & A.K. Mullis, “Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth,”
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000)467-478;

[15] R.L. Coley & B.L. Medeiros, “Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father
Involvement and Adolescent Delinquency,” Child Development 78(2007)132-147;

[16] M.A. Hill & J. O’Neill, Underclass behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of
Determinants (1993) New York: City University of New York.

[17] N. Davidson, “Life Without Father”. Policy Review, 51(1990)40-44.

 19 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

[18] H.A. Turner, “The Effect of Lifetime Victimization on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents,”
Social Science & Medicine 62-1(January 2006)13-27.

[19] B.J. Ellis, et al, “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and
Teenage Pregnancy?,” Child Development 74-3(2003)801-821.

[20] G. R. Weitoft, “Mortality, Severe Morbidity, and Injury in Children Living with Single Parents in
Sweden: A Population-Based Study,” The Lancet 361-9354(January 25, 2003) 289-295, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12324-0

[21] R. Bauserman, “Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-

analytic Review.,” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 91–102, 2002.

[22] L. Nielsen, “Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Children’s Outcomes Independent of Parent–Child
Relationships, Income, and Conflict in 60 Studies,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, vol. 59, no. 4,
pp. 247–281, May 2018.

[23] L. Vowels, C. L. Comolli, L. Bernardi, D. Chacón-Mendoza, & J. Darwiche,, “Systematic Review and
Theoretical Comparison of Children’s Outcomes in Post-Separation Living Arrangements,” PLoS ONE
18(6): e0288112, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288112.

[24] D. Fernández-Kranz & N. Nollenberger, “The Impact of Equal Parenting time Laws on Family
Outcomes and Risky Behavior by Teenagers: Evidence from Spain,” Journal Of Economic Behavior
and Organization, vol. 195, pp. 303-325, 2022.

[25] M. K. Pruett & J. H. DiFonzo, “Closing the Gap: Research, Policy, Practice, and Shared Parenting:
Closing the Gap,” Family Court Review, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 152–174, Apr. 2014.

[26] R. A. Warshak, “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,”
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 46, 2014.

[27] S. L. Braver & M. E. Lamb, “Shared Parenting After Parental Separation: The Views of 12 Experts,”
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 372–387, Jul. 2018.

[28] W. V. Fabricius, “Equal Parenting Time: The Case for a Legal Presumption,” in Oxford Handbook of
Children and the Law, J. G. Dwyer, Ed. Oxford University Press, pp. 453-476, 2019.

[29] S. L. Braver & A. Votruba, “Does Shared Parenting ‘Cause’ Children’s Better Outcomes?” The
Routledge International Handbook of Shared Parenting and Best Interest of the Child. Routledge,
Taylor & Francis, 2021.

[30] W.V. Fabricius, Fajita Tyrell, Go Woon Suh, Mathew Stevenson, & Jeffrey Cookston, “Parenting Time
and Emotional Security in Children of Divorce: Implications for Public Health Intervention,”
(manuscript under review).

[31] D. Fernández-Kranz, N. Nollenberger, & J. Roff, “Bargaining Under Threats: The Effect of Joint
Custody Laws on Intimate Partner Violence, American Journal of Health Economics, 2024,
https://doi.org/10.1086/731585.

[32] W. Bernet, “Parental Alienation,” The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, Wiley, 2015, DOI:
10.1002/9781118625392.

[33] J. Harman, E. Kruk, & D. Hines, ‘Parental Alienating Behaviors: An Unacknowledged Form of Family
Violence,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 144, no. 12, pp, 1275-1299, 2018.
 20 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

[34] S. Verhaar, M.L. Matthewson, & C. Bentley, “The Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours on
the Mental Health of Adults Alienated in Childhood,” Children, 2022, 9, 475.
https://doi.org/10.3390/children9040475.

[35] E. Kruk & J. Harman, “Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as a Form of Family Violence
and Child Abuse,” The American Journal of Family Therapy, 16 Sep 2024).
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2024.2396279.

[36] J.F. Fidler & N. Bala, “Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts,
Controversies, and Conundrums,” Family Court Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, January 2010, pp.
10-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01287.x.

[37] National Parents Organization, “Shared Parenting Polling.” [Online.] Available at:
https://www.sharedparenting.org/shared-parenting-polling. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2025.]

[38] LW4SP, “Polling & Voting Results on Shared Parenting,” Leading Women for Shared Parenting.
[Online]. Available: http://lw4sp.org/polling-voting. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2025.]

[39] Public Policy Polling, “Kentucky Survey Results,” [Online]. Available at:
https://www.sharedparenting.org/s/Kentucky-Results.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Mar-2025.]

[40] W. V. Fabricius, M. Aaron, F. R. Akins, J. J. Assini, & T. McElroy, “What Happens When There is
Presumptive 50/50 Parenting Time? An Evaluation of Arizona’s New Child Custody Statute,” J. Divorce
Remarriage, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 414–428, 2018.

[41] M.W. Pence, “September 3, 2024,) YouTube, [Online.] Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3G17Xz2_U. [Accessed: 23-Mar-2025]

[42] G. Colman and G. Piskor, “Equal Parenting International Innovations: Evaluating Myths and
Stereotypes,” in The Future of Family Justice-International Innovations, Toronto, Canada,
2019. Presented at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 56th Annual Conference, May,
2019.

[43] N. Holstein, “Council of Europe Encourages Shared Parenting,” 20-Oct-2015. [Online]. Available:
https://nationalparentsorganization.net/council-of-europe-encourages-shared-parenting/.
[Accessed: 3-Mar-2025].

[44] G. Battaini-Dragoni, “4th International Conference on Shared Parenting 2018 – Opening Remarks,”
Platform for European Fathers (PEF), 22-Nov-2018.

[45] D. Meyer, M. Carlson, & M. Alam, “2018-2020 Child Support Policy Research Agreement Task 12:
Changes in Placement after Divorce and Implications for Child Support Policy,” Institute for Research
on Poverty Research Papers, December 20, 2019. Available at:
https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CS-2018-2020-Task-12.pdf.

[46] T. Black, M. Saini, S. Deljava, B. Fallon, R. Theoduloz, & M. Wall (2016), “The Intersection of Child
Custody Disputes and Child Protection Investigations: Secondary Data Analysis of the Canadian
Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect,” (CIS-2008). International Journal of Child and
Adolescent Resilience, 4(2016)1, 143–157.

[47] D. Hubin, “Shared Parenting and Family Violence,” Building Bridges of Hope: Overcoming Trauma in
Family Law Cases, ed. by D. McCarty, D. Dockery, & R. Thompson, Kids Need Both, Inc., 2024.
21 2025 NPO Shared Parenting Report

Appendix A: Map - Grades By States

• 6 states received ‘A’s

• 10 states and the District of Columbia ‘B’s

• 19 states received ‘C’s

• 14 states received ‘D’s

• 2 states received ‘F’s

22

Appendix B: Listing - States by Grades

A+
Arizona C+ D+
West Virginia Alaska New Jersey
A Idaho Oklahoma
Florida New Mexico D
Kentucky C California
Missouri Colorado North Dakota
A- Delaware Pennsylvania
Arkansas Georgia Wyoming

B+ Hawaii D-
District of Columbia Maine Connecticut
Massachusetts
B Indiana
Michigan Maryland
Iowa
New Hampshire Mississippi
Nevada
Ohio Montana
B-
Oregon Nebraska
Louisiana
Vermont North Carolina
Minnesota
Washington South Carolina
South Dakota
C- F
Tennessee
Alabama New York
Texas
Illinois Rhode Island
Utah
Kansas
Wisconsin
Virginia
23

Appendix C: State Details

State Grade Positives Negatives

Alabama C- ● Alabama explicitly permits joint ● Alabama has no explicit provisions for
ALA. CODE § 30-3-150 custody in final orders. joint custody or shared parenting in
temporary orders.
ALA. CODE § 30-3-152 ● Alabama statutes include the
following policy statement: “It is the ● Alabama’s policy statement concerning
ALA. CODE § 30-3-169.6
policy of this state to assure that joint custody explicitly denies that joint
minor children have frequent and custody includes equal physical custody.
continuing contact with parents who (“Joint custody does not necessarily mean
have shown the ability to act in the equal physical custody.”) ALA. CODE §
best interest of their children and to 30-3-150
encourage parents to share in the
● Alabama has no statutory preference for
rights and responsibilities of rearing
or presumption of shared parenting (joint
their children after the parents have
legal custody and substantially equal
separated or dissolved their
physical custody) in either temporary or
marriage.” ALA. CODE § 30-3-150
final orders.
● Alabama requires courts to consider
“friendly parent” factor in joint
custody. ALA. CODE § 30-3-152
● Alabama statutes treat false
allegations specific to change of
residence issues as punishable by
non-monetary sanctions, fines, and
court costs. ALA. CODE § 30-3-169.6
24

State Grade Positives Negatives

Alaska C+ ● Alaska explicitly permits shared ● Alaska has no policy statement

ALASKA STAT. § 25.20.060 custody “if shared custody is concerning shared parenting.
determined to be in the best interest
ALASKA STAT. § 25.20.070 ● In Alaska, an award of shared custody in
of the child.” ALASKA STAT. §
final orders requires only “frequent and
25.20.070
continuing contact with each parent to
● Alaska requires that, in issuing the maximum extent possible.” ALASKA
temporary orders, “[u]nless it is shown STAT. § 25.20.060 It does not require
to be detrimental to the welfare of the substantially equal time or equal access.
child … or unless the presumption
● Alaska has no statutory preference for or
under ALASKA STAT. § 25.24.150(g) is
presumption of joint legal custody in
present, the child shall have, to the
either temporary orders or final orders.
greatest degree practical, equal access
to both parents during the time that ● Alaska has no statutory preference for or
the court considers an award of presumption of substantially equal
custody.” ALASKA STAT. § 25.20.070 parenting time in final orders.

● Alaska statutes require, except in ● Alaska does not have a specific statute
cases of domestic abuse, for false allegations of abuse in a family
consideration of a “friendly parent” law action.
factor: “the willingness and ability of
each parent to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing
relationship between the other parent
and the child.” ALASKA STAT. §
25.24.150(c)(6)
25

State Grade Positives Negatives

Arizona A+ ● Arizona statutes strongly encourage equal ● Arizona has no explicit provisions for
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25- shared parenting and maximum practicable shared parenting during temporary
403 parenting time by requiring courts to “adopt a orders and, thus, no statutory
parenting plan that provides for both parents preference for or presumption of
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-
403.02 to share legal decision-making regarding their shared parenting during temporary
child and that maximizes their respective orders.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-
parenting time.” ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-
3620.01 ● Arizona’s statutes do not explicitly
403.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25- require courts to provide reasons for
415 ● Research indicates courts interpret maximum failing to adopt parenting plans that
time provisions as implicit rebuttable involve shared legal decision-making
presumption of equal parenting time. and maximization of both parents’
parenting time.
● Arizona explicitly endorses a “friendly parent”
rule. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-403
● Arizona explicitly requires courts to consider
“[w]hether one parent intentionally misled the
court to cause an unnecessary delay, to
increase the cost of litigation or to persuade
the court to give a legal decision-making or a
parenting time preference to that parent.”
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-403
● Arizona statutes provide sanctions for
knowingly making false allegations of abuse.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-3620.01 & ARIZ. REV.
STAT. § 25-415
26

State Grade Positives Negatives

Arkansas A- ● Arkansas statutes establish "a ● Arkansas statutes do not specifically

ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-13- rebuttable presumption that joint provide for shared parenting (joint legal
101 custody is in the best interest of the custody and substantially equal parenting
child" [ARK CODE § 9-13- time) during temporary orders.
101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(a)] and define 'joint
● Arkansas statutes do not specifically
custody' as "the approximate and
provide a presumption of joint legal
reasonable equal division of time with
custody (decision-making responsibility).
the child by both parents." ARK
CODE § 9-13-101(a)(5) ● Arkansas statutes do not require courts
to consider a “friendly parent” factor in
● If the presumption of joint physical
determining the best interest of a child.
custody is rebutted, Arkansas
statutes require courts to "maximize ● Arkansas does not have a specific statute
the amount of time that each parent for false allegations of abuse in a family
has with the child ... consistent with law action..
the best interest of the child." ARK.
COD. § 9-13-101(b)(3)(B)
● Arkansas statutes allow (though they
do not require) courts to consider a
“friendly parent” factor in determining
the best interest of a child. ARK.
COD. § 9-13-101(b)(2)
● Arkansas statutes include an
exception for cases of domestic
violence. ARK. COD. § 9-13-101(c)(2)
27

State Grade Positives Negatives

California D ● California statutes require courts to ● California has no statutory preference

CAL. FAM. CODE § 3040 consider “friendly parent” factors in for, or presumption of, shared parenting.
awarding sole custody. CAL. FAM. The presumption (CAL. FAM. CODE §
CAL. FAM. CODE § 3080
CODE § 3040 3080) in favor of joint custody applies
CAL. FAM. CODE § 3027.1 only when both parents agree to joint
● California statutes provide sanctions
custody. This is not a shared parenting
for knowingly making false allegations
presumption; it is simply deference to fit
of abuse. CAL. FAM. CODE § 3027.1
parents’ joint decisions.
● California explicitly denies any
preference or presumption concerning
physical or legal custody: “[t] his section
establishes neither a preference nor a
presumption for or against joint legal
custody, joint physical custody, or sole
custody, but allows the court and the
family the widest discretion to choose a
parenting plan that is in the best interest
of the child. CAL. FAM. CODE § 3040
● California statutes do not explicitly
provide for shared parenting during
temporary orders.
28

State Grade Positives Negatives

Colorado C ● Colorado has a legislative declaration ● Colorado has no statutory preference for,
COLO. REV. STAT. § 14-10- which states “in most circumstances, or presumption of, shared parenting (joint
124 it is in the best interest of all parties legal custody and shared physical
to encourage frequent and continuing custody) for temporary or final orders.
contact between each parent and the
● Colorado statutes do not explicitly
minor children of the marriage after
provide for shared parenting during
the parents have separated or
temporary orders.
dissolved their marriage. In order to
effectuate this goal when ● Colorado does not have a specific statute
appropriate, the general assembly for false allegations of abuse in a family
urges parents to share the rights and law action.
responsibilities of child-rearing and to
encourage the love, affection, and
contact between the children and the
parents.” COLO. REV. STAT. § 14-10-
124
● Colorado requires courts to consider
a “friendly parent” factor when
allocating parental rights and
responsibilities. Courts are to
consider “[t]he ability of the parties to
encourage the sharing of love,
affection, and contact between the
child and the other party.” COLO.
REV. STAT. § 14-10-124
29

State Grade Positives Negatives

Connecticut D- ● Connecticut specifically permits (but ● Connecticut has no statutory preference

CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46B- does not require) courts to consider a for, or presumption of, shared parenting
56 “friendly parent” factor in determining (joint legal custody and shared physical
a parenting order. Courts are to custody) for temporary or final orders.
consider “the willingness and ability
● Connecticut statutes do not explicitly
of each parent to facilitate and
provide for shared parenting during
encourage such continuing parent-
temporary orders.
child relationship between the child
and the other parent as is ● Connecticut does not have a specific
appropriate, including compliance statute for false allegations of abuse in a
with any court orders.” CONN. GEN. family law action.
STAT. § 46B-56
30

State Grade Positives Negatives

Delaware C ● Delaware statutes require ● Delaware has no statutory preference

consideration of the “friendly parent” for, or presumption of, shared parenting
DEL. CODE ANN. TIT. 13 §
factor. Delaware is a model for other (joint legal custody and shared physical
722
states in this respect. The state custody) for temporary or final orders.
requires courts to hold a hearing
● Delaware statutes do not explicitly
before denying or restricting parents’
provide for shared parenting during
“frequent and meaningful contact
temporary orders.
with the child” and to include in their
judgment the facts and conclusions
that justify such a decision. DEL.
CODE ANN. TIT. 13 § 722
31

State Grade Positives Negatives

District of Columbia B+ ● The District of Columbia has a ● The District of Columbia does not
D.C. CODE § 16-914 statutorily mandated “rebuttable prohibit a court from considering “race,
assumption that joint custody is in color, national origin, political affiliation,
the best interest of the child or sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity
children” except when there are or expression of a party” as a factor in
factors such as abuse and neglect. custody; it forbids only treating one of
D.C. CODE § 16-914 The statute these factors as “a conclusive
clearly distinguishes legal from consideration.” D.C. CODE § 16-914
physical custody and the language
● District of Columbia statutes do not
establishing the presumption of joint
explicitly provide for shared parenting
custody does not restrict it to legal
during temporary orders.
custody.
● District of Columbia does not have a
● The District of Columbia has a strong
specific statute for false allegations of
“deference to parental agreement”
abuse in a family law action.
statute requiring that: “[t]he Court
shall enter an order for any custody
arrangement that is agreed to by both
parents unless clear and convincing
evidence indicates that the
arrangement is not in the best
interest of the minor child. D.C.
CODE § 16-914
● The District of Columbia requires
courts to consider a “friendly parent”
factor. D.C. CODE § 16-914
32

State Grade Positives Negatives

Florida A ● Florida statutes establish "a rebuttable ● Florida statutes do not explicitly
FLA. STAT. § 61.13(2)(c)(1) presumption that equal time-sharing of a provide for shared parenting during
minor child is in the best interests of the temporary orders.
FLA. STAT. § 61.13(3)(a) minor child." FLA. STAT. § 61.13(2)(c)(1)
FLA. STAT. § 61.13(3)n ● Florida statutes require courts to "make
FLA. STAT. § specific written findings of fact when
61.13(2)(c)3.a. creating or modifying a timesharing
schedule" except when the court's orders
are those agreed to by the parties. FLA.
STAT. § 61.13(2)(c)(1)
● Florida statutes require courts to consider
a friendly parent factor: ”demonstrated
capacity and disposition of each parent to
facilitate and encourage a close and
continuing parent-child relationship, to
honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be
reasonable when changes are required."
FLA. STAT. § 61.13(3)(a)
● Florida statutes treat false allegations of
abuse as a factor in custody decisions or
provide for sanctions. FLA. STAT. §
61.13(3)n
● Florida statutes include an exception for
cases of domestic violence FLA. STAT. §
61.13(2)(c)3.a.
33

State Grade Positives Negatives

Georgia C ● Georgia statutes explicitly define ● Georgia has no statutory preference for,
GA. CODE ANN. § 19-9-6 “joint physical custody” as or presumption of, shared parenting (joint
“substantially equal time and contact legal custody and shared physical
GA. CODE ANN. § 19-9-3
with both parents.” GA. CODE ANN. custody) for temporary or final orders.
§ 19-9-6
● Georgia statutes do not require courts to
● Georgia expressly encourages that consider “friendly parent” factors in
minor children have “continuing awarding custody.
contact with parents and
● Georgia does not have a specific statute
grandparents who have shown the
for false allegations of abuse in a family
ability to act in the best interest of
law action.
the child” and “parents to share in the
rights and responsibilities of raising
their children after such parents have
separated or dissolved their
marriage.” GA. CODE ANN. § 19-9-3
34

State Grade Positives Negatives

Hawaii C ● Hawaii considers “[e]ach parent’s ● Hawaii has no statutory preference for,
HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-46 actions demonstrating that they allow or presumption of, shared parenting (joint
the child to maintain family legal custody and shared physical
HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-
connections through family events custody) for temporary or final orders.
46(17)(b)(16)
and activities,” each parent’s ability to
● Hawaii statutes do not explicitly provide
“separate the child’s needs from the
for shared parenting during temporary
parent’s needs,” and “[a] parent’s
orders.
prior willful misuse of the protection
from abuse process … to gain tactical ● Hawaii’s definition of “joint custody” is
advantage in any proceeding weak. It requires joint legal custody but,
involving the custody determination with respect to physical custody, it
of a minor,” as factors in determining requires only “frequent, continuing, and
what custodial arrangement is in a meaningful contact with both parents.”
child’s best interest. HAW. REV. HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-46.1
STAT. § 571-46
● Hawaii meets the minimum threshold
of encouraging shared parenting.
● Hawaii statutes treat false allegations
of abuse as a factor in custody
decisions. HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-
46(17)(b)(16)
35

State Grade Positives Negatives

Idaho C+ ● Idaho statute requires that “[e]xcept ● Idaho’s definition of “joint custody” is
IDAHO CODE ANN. § 32- as provided in subsection (5), of this weak. It requires joint legal custody but,
717B section [concerning domestic with respect to physical custody, it
violence], absent a preponderance of requires only “frequent and continuing
the evidence to the contrary, there contact with both parents.” “Joint
shall be a presumption that joint physical custody,” though, is defined
custody is in the best interests of a more strongly as requiring “awarding
minor child or children.” IDAHO each of the parents significant periods of
CODE ANN. § 32-717B time in which a child resides with or is
under the care and supervision of each of
● Idaho statutes require that “[i]f the
the parents.” IDAHO CODE ANN. § 32-
court declines to enter an order
717B
awarding joint custody, the court
shall state in its decision the reasons ● Idaho does not have a specific statute for
for denial of an award of joint false allegations of abuse in a family law
custody.” IDAHO CODE ANN. § 32- action.
717B
● Idaho statutes encourage shared
parenting.
36

State Grade Positives Negatives

Illinois C- ● Illinois statutes allow a court to determine ● Illinois has no statutory

750 ILL. COMP. STAT. temporary custody under the standards and preference for, or presumption
5/602 Replaced by procedures that are used to determine permanent of, shared parenting (joint legal
5/602.7 custody. This allows a court to award joint physical custody and shared physical
750 ILL. COMP. STAT. and legal custody during temporary orders. custody) for temporary or final
5/602.1 Replaced by orders. Immediately after
● Illinois statutes include a statement of purposes that
5/602.7 establishing the presumption
includes “secure the maximum involvement and
that “maximum involvement and
cooperation of both parents regarding the physical,
cooperation of both parents
mental, moral and emotional well-being of the
regarding the physical, mental,
children during and after the litigation.”
moral, and emotional well-being
● Illinois statute requires that “Unless the court finds of their child is in the best
the occurrence of ongoing abuse …, the court shall interest of the child,” the statute
presume that the maximum involvement and continues: “There shall be no
cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, presumption in favor of or
mental, moral, and emotional well-being of their against joint custody.” 750 ILL.
child is in the best interest of the child.” 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/602
COMP. STAT. 5/602
● Illinois does not have a specific
● Illinois requires a court, in determining the best statute for false allegations of
interest of a child, to consider “the willingness and abuse in a family law action.
ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a
close and continuing relationship between the other
parent and the child.” 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/602
● Illinois statutes require a court to consider an award
of joint custody upon the application by either
parent. 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/602.1
37

State Grade Positives Negatives

Indiana D- ● Indiana statutes explicitly permit a ● Indiana has no statutory preference for,
IND. CODE § 31-17-2-15 court to award joint legal custody or presumption of, shared parenting (joint
even if the parents do not both agree legal custody and shared physical
IND. CODE § 31-33-22-3
to it, though agreement by the custody) for temporary or final orders.
parents is an important factor. IND.
● Indiana statutes do not explicitly provide
CODE § 31-17-2-15
for shared parenting during temporary
● Indiana statutes treat false allegations orders. IND. CODE § 31-17-2-15
of abuse as a factor in custody
decisions. IND. CODE § 31-33-22-3 ● Indiana statutes state explicitly that joint
legal custody “does not require an equal
division of physical custody of the child.”
● Indiana statutes do not require courts to
consider “friendly parent” factors in
awarding custody.
38

State Grade Positives Negatives

Iowa B ● Iowa has a strong presumption of joint legal ● Iowa statutes do not explicitly
IOWA CODE § 598.41 custody. Iowa statutes require that “On the provide for shared parenting
application of either parent, the court shall during temporary orders.
consider granting joint custody in cases where the ● Iowa’s presumption of joint
parents do not agree to joint custody. If the court physical custody is not as strong
does not grant joint custody under this as its presumption of joint legal
subsection, the court shall cite clear and custody.
convincing evidence, pursuant to the factors in
● Iowa does not have a specific
subsection 3, that joint custody is unreasonable
statute for false allegations of
and not in the best interest of the child to the
abuse in a family law action.
extent that the legal custodial relationship
between the child and a parent should be
severed.” IOWA CODE § 598.412.a.
● Iowa statute requires that “[i]f the court denies
the request for joint physical care, the
determination shall be accompanied by specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law that the
awarding of joint physical care is not in the best
interest of the child.” IOWA CODE § 598.41.5.a.
● Iowa statutes state courts ”may provide for joint
custody”...to “assure the child the opportunity for
the maximum continuing physical and emotional
contact with both parents.”
● Iowa statutes specify a “friendly parent” factor in
awarding custody. IOWA CODE § 598.41.1.c.
39

State Grade Positives Negatives

Kansas C- ● Kansas statutes express a preference ● Kansas statutes do not explicitly provide
KAN. STAT. ANN. § 23-3206 for joint legal custody. KAN. STAT. for shared parenting during temporary
ANN. § 23-3206 orders.
KAN. STAT. ANN. § 23-3203
● Kansas statute requires courts to ● Kansas statutes, though they express a
KAN.STAT.ANN.S 23-3208 consider “friendly parent” factors. preference for joint legal custody, do not
“[T]he court shall consider all relevant establish a rebuttable presumption that
factors, including, but not limited to: shared parenting (joint legal custody and
... the willingness and ability of each shared physical custody) is in a child’s
parent to respect and appreciate the best interest.
bond between the child and the other ● Kansas has no statutory preference for,
parent and to allow for a continuing or presumption of, shared physical
relationship between the child and custody for temporary or final orders.
the other parent.” KAN. STAT. ANN. ● Kansas statutes have only a weak
§ 23-3203 presumption with respect to parenting
time. “A parent is entitled to reasonable
parenting time unless the court finds,
after a hearing, that the exercise of
parenting time would seriously endanger
the child’s physical, mental, moral or
emotional health.” KAN.STAT.ANN.S 23-
3208
● Kansas does not have a specific statute
for false allegations of abuse in a family
law action.
40

State Grade Positives Negatives

Kentucky A ● In two major legislative changes, spearheaded ● Kentucky has no explicit

KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § by NPO, Kentucky statutes now contain a provisions for domestic
403.270 rebuttable presumption “that joint custody and relations courts to deal with a
equally shared parenting time is in the best false allegation of abuse to
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §
403.280 interest of the child” barring issues of domestic block shared parenting.
violence and abuse for both temporary and
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § ● Kentucky does not have a
permanent orders.
403.315 specific statute for false
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.270 allegations of abuse in a family
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.280 law action.

KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.315

● These provisions subsume a shared parenting
policy, “friendly parent” factors, and maximum
parenting time provisions.
● Legislative changes have propelled Kentucky
from one of the lower ranked shared parenting
states to the top tier.
41

State Grade Positives Negatives

Louisiana B- ● Louisiana statute has a strong ● It is unclear whether the presumption of

LA. CIV. CODE ANN. ART. presumption of joint custody. It joint custody, which can be overcome
132 requires courts to award custody only by clear and convincing evidence,
according to the agreement of the extends to physical custody.
LA. CIV. CODE ANN. ART.
134 parents, unless that is not in the best ● Louisiana statutes do not specifically
interest of the child. “In the absence require courts to justify, in writing, their
LA RS TIT. 9, § 335
of agreement, or if the agreement is deviations from the presumption of joint
not in the best interest of the child, custody.
the court shall award custody to the ● Louisiana statutes do not explicitly
parents jointly; however, if custody in provide for shared parenting during
one parent is shown by clear and temporary orders.
convincing evidence to serve the best
● Louisiana does not have a specific statute
interest of the child, the court shall
for false allegations of abuse in a family
award custody to that parent.” LA.
law action.
CIV. CODE ANN. ART. 132
● Louisiana statute requires courts to
consider the “friendly parent” factor
in determining a child’s best interest.
LA. CIV. CODE ANN. ART. 134
● Louisiana has a preference that
“physical custody of the child should
be shared equally.” LA RS TIT. 9, §
335
● Louisiana language strongly
encourages shared parenting.
42

State Grade Positives Negatives

Maine C ● Maine statutes declare: “The Legislature finds and ● Maine has no statutory preference
ME. REV. STAT. TIT. declares that, except when a court determines that for, or presumption of, shared
19-A § 1653 the best interest of a child would not be served, it is parenting (joint legal custody and
the public policy of this State to assure minor shared physical custody) for
ME.REV.STAT.Tit.19
-A 1658 children of frequent and continuing contact with temporary or final orders.
both parents after the parents have separated or ● Maine statutes do not explicitly
dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents provide for shared parenting during
to share the rights and responsibilities of child temporary orders.
rearing in order to effect this policy.” ME. REV.
STAT. TIT. 19-A § 1653
● Maine mandates that courts consider a “friendly
parent” factor. One factor in determining whether
custodial arrangements are in the best interest of a
child is, “[t]he capacity of each parent to allow and
encourage frequent and continuing contact
between the child and the other parent, including
physical access.” ME. REV. STAT. TIT. 19-A § 1653
● Maine statute provides for the appointment of
“parenting coordinators” to resolve conflicts
between parents. ME.REV.STAT.Tit.19-A 1658
● Maine statutes treat false allegations of abuse as a
factor in custody decisions. ME. REV. STAT. TIT.
19-A § 1653.3.O.
43

State Grade Positives Negatives

Maryland D- ● Maryland statutes permit a court to ● Maryland has no statutory preference

MD. CODE ANN. FAM. LAW award joint custody. MD. CODE ANN. for, or presumption of, shared
§ 5-203 FAM. LAW § 5-203 parenting (joint legal custody and
shared physical custody) for temporary
or final orders.
● Maryland statutes do not explicitly
provide for shared parenting during
temporary orders.
● Maryland statutes do not require
courts to consider “friendly parent”
factors in awarding custody.
● Maryland statute does not contain any
policy statement or other language
encouraging shared parenting.
● Maryland does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse in
a family law action.
44

State Grade Positives Negatives

Massachusetts C ● Massachusetts statute has a rebuttable ● Massachusetts statute does not
presumption of shared legal custody of contain any policy statement or other
MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 208
children during temporary orders; language encouraging shared
§ 31
deviations from this require a finding parenting.
that shared legal custody is not in the
● Massachusetts has no statutory
best interest of the child and the court
preference for shared legal or physical
must provide written findings
custody for temporary or final orders
supporting such a determination. MASS.
and explicitly denies a presumption for
GEN. LAWS CH. 208 § 31
shared legal or physical custody in
● Massachusetts statutes explicitly define temporary or final orders. MASS. GEN.
“shared legal custody,” “sole legal LAWS CH. 208 § 31
custody,” “shared physical custody,” and
● Massachusetts defines ‘shared
“sole physical custody.” MASS. GEN.
physical custody’ weakly: “a child shall
LAWS CH. 208 § 31
have periods of residing with and
being under the supervision of each
parent.” MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 208 §
31
● Massachusetts does not have a
specific statute for false allegations of
abuse in a family law action.
45

State Grade Positives Negatives

Michigan C ● Michigan statutes require parents in dispute ● Michigan has no statutory preference
MICH. COMP. LAWS about custody to be “advised of joint custody” for, or presumption of, shared
§ 722.26A and if requested by either parent, “the court parenting (joint legal custody and
shall consider an award of joint custody, and shared physical custody) for
MICH. COMP. LAWS
§ 722.23 shall state on the record the reasons for temporary or final orders.
granting or denying a request.” MICH. COMP.
MICH. COMP. LAWS ● Michigan statutes do not explicitly
LAWS § 722.26A
§ 722.27a provide for shared parenting during
● Michigan statutes require that the “friendly temporary orders.
parent” factors be considered in determining
● Michigan’s statutory definition of
the best interest of the child. MICH. COMP.
“joint custody” is weak. It requires
LAWS § 722.23
only that the order specify at least
● Michigan statutes meet minimum threshold of one of the following: “[t]hat the child
a shared parenting policy requiring that reside alternately for specific periods
“parenting time shall be granted to a parent in with each of the parents” and/or
a frequency, duration, and type reasonably “[t]hat the parents shall share
calculated to promote a strong relationship decision-making authority as to the
between the child and the parent granted important decisions affecting the
parenting time.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § welfare of the child.” MICH. COMP.
722.27a LAWS § 722.26A
● Michigan statutes allow a court to deny ● Michigan does not have a specific
parenting time only when there is “clear and statute for false allegations of abuse
convincing evidence that it would endanger in a family law action.
the child’s physical, mental, or emotional
health.” MICH. COMP. LAWS § 722.27a
46

State Grade Positives Negatives

Minnesota B- ● Minnesota statutes require a court “use a rebuttable presumption that ● Minnesota has no
upon request of either or both parties, joint legal custody is in the best statutory preference
MINN. STAT.
interest of the child.” MINN. STAT. § 518.17 for, or presumption of,
§ 518.17
● Minnesota statutes specify that “[d]isagreement alone over whether to shared physical custody
grant sole or joint custody does not constitute an inability of parents to for temporary or final
cooperate in the rearing of their children.” MINN. STAT. § 518.17 orders. Indeed, such a
● Legislation enacted in 2024 strengthened Minnesota's child custody preference or
policy statement to endorse "frequent and substantial" contact with both presumption is
parents in place of the previous "frequent and continuing" contact specifically denied.
provision (MINN. STAT. § 518.17(11)) and to emphasize that the MINN. STAT. §
presumption of a minimum of 25% of the parenting time to each parent 518.17.1(b)(7)
was a floor, not a ceiling (MINN. STAT. § 518.175.1.(g)) ● Minnesota statutes do
● Minnesota statutes give courts the power to grant or enhance parenting not explicitly provide
time using a “best interest” standard and specify that increasing the for shared parenting
parenting time of a parent with less parenting time to near equality does during temporary
not constitute a “restriction on the other parent’s parenting time.” orders.
● Minnesota statutes require courts to justify any custody decision (sole or
joint) imposed over the objections of one of the parents.
● Minnesota statutes require courts to consider a “friendly parent” factor in
determining the child’s best interest.
● Minnesota statutes clearly indicate the content of parenting plans
designed to facilitate shared parenting.
● Minnesota has statutory provisions for the enforcement of parenting time
and resolving disputes over parenting time. These include provisions for
pro se legal actions. Violations result in compensating time and may
include fines and attorney’s fees. MINN. STAT. § 518.17
● Minnesota treats false allegations of abuse as a best interest factor with
violations punishable as a misdemeanor. MINN. STAT. § 609.507
47

State Grade Positives Negatives

Mississippi D- ● Mississippi statutes list joint legal and ● Mississippi has no statutory preference
MISS. CODE ANN. § 93-5-24 physical custody of children first in the for, or presumption of, shared parenting
list of legal options. MISS. CODE ANN. (joint legal custody and shared physical
§ 93-5-24 Though this does not custody) for temporary or final orders.
establish a legal preference or
● Mississippi statutes do not explicitly
presumption, it might draw attention
provide for shared parenting during
to this option.
temporary orders.
● Mississippi statutes do not require
courts to consider “friendly parent”
factors in awarding custody.
● Mississippi statute does not contain any
policy statement or other language
encouraging shared parenting.
● Mississippi does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse in a
family law action.
48

State Grade Positives Negatives

Missouri A ● Missouri statutes establish "a ● Missouri statutes do not identify false
MO. REV. STAT. § 452.375 rebuttable presumption that an award allegations of abuse as a factor in
of equal or approximately equal determining custody.
parenting time to each parent is in
● Missouri does not have a specific statute
the best interests of the child." MO.
for false allegations of abuse in a family
REV. STAT. § 452.375.2
law action.
● Missouri statutes require courts to
consider a “friendly parent” factor in
determining the child’s best interest.
MO. REV. STAT. § 452.375.2(4)
● Missouri statute includes a
declaration of public policy that
“frequent, continuing and meaningful
contact with both parents” is in the
best interest of the child except for
specified cases such as abuse. It
directs the courts to select a custody
arrangement that will best assure
such contact. MO. REV. STAT. §
452.375.4
49

State Grade Positives Negatives

Montana D- ● Montana statutes list as a factor courts may ● Montana has no statutory
MONT. CODE ANN. § 40-4- consider in determining a child’s best interest preference for, or presumption
212 “whether the child has frequent and continuing of, shared parenting (joint legal
contact with both parents, which is considered custody and shared physical
to be in the child's best interests unless the custody) for temporary or final
court determines, after a hearing, that contact orders.
with a parent would be detrimental to the ● Montana statutes do not
child's best interests.” MONT. CODE ANN. § explicitly provide for shared
40-4-212 Unfortunately, the language is parenting during temporary
permissive, not mandatory, so a court can orders.
ignore this factor without violating any specific
● Montana does not have a
statutory requirement.
specific statute for false
allegations of abuse in a family
law action.
50

State Grade Positives Negatives

Nebraska D- ● Nebraska permits courts to award shared ● Nebraska has no statutory

parenting (joint legal custody and shared preference for, or presumption
NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-364
physical custody). of, shared parenting (joint legal
NEB. REV. STAT. § 43-2923 custody and shared physical
custody) for temporary or final
orders.
● Nebraska statutes do not
explicitly provide for shared
parenting during temporary
orders.
● Nebraska statutes do not
require courts to consider
“friendly parent” factors in
awarding custody.
● Nebraska statute does not
contain any policy statement or
other language encouraging
shared parenting
● Nebraska does not have a
specific statute for false
allegations of abuse in a family
law action.
51

State Grade Positives Negatives

Nevada B ● Nevada statutes include a policy statement ● Nevada statutes do not

NEV. REV. STAT. § 125C encouraging “parents to share the rights and explicitly provide for shared
responsibilities of child rearing.” NEV. REV. STAT. parenting during temporary
§ 125C.001 orders.
● Nevada statutes establish a rebuttable ● Nevada statutes do not
presumption of joint legal custody when “a parent define ‘joint physical custody’
has demonstrated, or has attempted to as requiring any minimum
demonstrate but has had his or her efforts level of parenting time for
frustrated by the other parent, an intent to each parent. The statutes do
establish a meaningful relationship with the minor not require courts to
child. NEV. REV. STAT. § 125C.002 presume equal parenting
time or to attempt to
● Nevada statutes establish a preference of joint
maximize the children’s time
physical custody when “a parent has
with each parent.
demonstrated, or has attempted to demonstrate
but has had his or her efforts frustrated by the ● Nevada statutes do not
other parent, an intent to establish a meaningful establish a rebuttable legal
relationship with the minor child. NEV. REV. presumption of joint physical
STAT. § 125C.0025 custody.
● Nevada statutes require a court to consider a ● Nevada does not have a
“friendly parent” factor in determining the best specific statute for false
interest of a child. NEV.REV. STAT. § allegations of abuse in a
125C.0035.4(c) family law action.
52

State Grade Positives Negatives

New Hampshire C ● New Hampshire statutes require a court to ● New Hampshire has no statutory preference
consider a “friendly parent” factor in determining a for, or presumption of, shared parenting (joint
N.H. REV. STAT.
child’s best interest. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 461- legal custody and shared physical custody) for
ANN. § 461-A:6
A:6 temporary or final orders.
N.H. REV. STAT. ● New Hampshire statutes may imply courts
● New Hampshire statutes include a detailed policy
ANN. § 461-A:2 can order shared parenting (joint legal
statement encouraging parents to share parental
N.H. REV. STAT. rights and responsibilities and to support frequent custody and shared physical custody) during
ANN. § 461-A:8 temporary orders but they do not explicitly
and continuing contact with both parents. N.H.
state this.
REV. STAT. ANN. § 461-A:2
● New Hampshire statutes specifically
● Legislation enacted in 2024 strengthened New
authorize courts to modify the original
Hampshire's policy statement to "Encourage
allocation of parental rights and
approximately equal parenting time between each
responsibilities if it finds that they are not
child and both parents if it is in the best interest of working but only if the original allocation
the child." N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 461-A:2 The involved “substantially equal periods of
same legislation requires a court to make findings residential responsibility.” This considers
supporting its orders when it "concludes that awards that involve substantially equal
approximately equal parenting time between each periods of residential responsibility as less
child and both parents is not in the best interest of legally stable than other allocations of
the child." N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 461-A:6 parental rights and responsibilities.
● New Hampshire statutes concerning temporary ● New Hampshire statutes explicitly designate
orders allow for the allocation of parental rights “a parent with 50 percent or more of the
and responsibilities during the pendency of the residential responsibility” as a “custodial
legal action to be determined on the same basis as parent” and “a parent with less than 50
for permanent orders. This should imply that joint percent of the residential responsibility” as a
legal and shared physical custody can be part of “noncustodial parent.”
temporary orders. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 461- ● New Hampshire does not have a specific
A:8 statute for false allegations of abuse in a
family law action.
53

State Grade Positives Negatives

New Jersey D+ ● New Jersey statutes include the following ● New Jersey has no statutory preference
N.J. STAT. ANN. § 9:2- policy statement: “The Legislature finds for, or presumption of, shared parenting
4 and declares that it is in the public policy of (joint legal custody and shared physical
this state to assure minor children of custody) for temporary or final orders.
frequent and continuing contact with both
● New Jersey statutes do not explicitly
parents after the parents have separated or
provide for shared parenting during
dissolved their marriage and that it is in the
temporary orders.
public interest to encourage parents to
share the rights and responsibilities of child ● New Jersey statutes do not require courts
rearing in order to effect this policy.” N.J. to consider “friendly parent” factors in
STAT. ANN. § 9:2-4 awarding custody.
● New Jersey does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse in a
family law action.
54

State Grade Positives Negatives

New Mexico C+ ● New Mexico statutes create a presumption ● New Mexico statute does not interpret
that “joint custody is in the best interest of “joint custody” to require equal, or
N.M. STAT. ANN. § 40-
a child in the initial custody determination” substantially equal, division of a child’s
4-9.1
and defines “joint custody” so as to require time. The language used (“significant, well-
that “each parent shall have significant, defined periods of responsibility for the
well-defined periods of responsibility for child”) leaves great room for courts to use
the child.” N.M. STAT. ANN. § 40-4-9.1 their discretion in inconsistent ways.
● New Mexico statute requires that a court, ● New Mexico statutes do not explicitly
when either granting or denying a joint provide for shared parenting during
custody request, “state in its decision its temporary orders.
basis for granting or denying the request
● New Mexico statutes do not require courts
for joint custody” and explicitly denies that
to consider “friendly parent” factors in
a mere “statement that joint custody is or
awarding custody.
is not in the best interest of the child” is
sufficient. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 40-4-9.1 ● New Mexico statutes do not include a
policy statement or other language
encouraging shared parenting.
● New Mexico does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse in a
family law action.
55

State Grade Positives Negatives

New York F ● None ● New York has no explicit statutory recognition of

N.Y. DOM. REL. LAW § 240 shared parenting, joint legal custody, shared
residential custody, or similar concepts. In New York,
joint custody decisions are based on case law, in
particular, Braiman v. Braiman (44 N.Y.2d 584; 378
N.E.2d 1019).
● New York has no statutory preference for, or
presumption of, shared parenting (joint legal custody
and shared physical custody) for temporary or final
orders.
● New York statutes do not explicitly provide for
shared parenting during temporary orders.
● New York statutes do not require courts to consider
“friendly parent” factors in awarding custody.
● New York statutes do not include a policy statement
or other language encouraging shared parenting.
● New York does not have a specific statute for false
allegations of abuse in a family law action.
56

State Grade Positives Negatives

North Carolina D- ● North Carolina statutes ● North Carolina has no statutory preference for, or
require courts to consider presumption of, shared parenting (joint legal custody
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 50-13.2
awarding joint custody if and shared physical custody) for temporary or final
either parent requests it. orders.
Furthermore, courts may
● North Carolina statutes do not explicitly provide for
support their custody
shared parenting during temporary orders.
orders with findings of
fact. N.C. GEN. STAT. § ● North Carolina statutes do not require courts to
50-13.2 consider “friendly parent” factors in awarding
custody.
● North Carolina statute does not contain any policy
statement or other language encouraging shared
parenting.
● North Carolina does not have a specific statute for
false allegations of abuse in a family law action.
57

State Grade Positives Negatives

North Dakota D ● North Dakota statutes ● North Dakota has no statutory preference for, or
N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-09- require a court to consider a presumption of, shared parenting (joint legal
06.2 “friendly parent” factor in custody and shared physical custody) for
determining the best temporary or final orders.
interest of a child. N.D.
● North Dakota statutes do not explicitly provide for
CENT. CODE § 14-09-
shared parenting during temporary orders.
06.2.1(e).
● North Dakota statute does not contain any policy
● North Dakota statutes treat
statement or other language encouraging shared
false allegations of abuse as
parenting.
a factor in custody
decisions. N.D. CENT. ● North Dakota statutes explicitly designate “a
CODE § 14-09-06.2.1.l parent with more than 50 percent of the
residential responsibility” as a “custodial parent”
and “a parent with less than 50 percent of the
residential responsibility” as a “noncustodial
parent.” N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-09-06.2.1(e) This
fails to resolve the terminology when each parent
has 50 percent of the residential responsibility.
58

State Grade Positives Negatives

Ohio C ● Ohio statutes require a court to consider issuing ● Ohio has no statutory preference for,
OHIO REV. CODE a shared parenting order if either parent requests or presumption of, shared parenting
ANN. § 3109.04 it and submits a parenting plan. If the court (joint legal custody and shared physical
determines that a filed shared parenting plan is custody) for temporary or final orders.
in the best interest of the children, the court may
● Ohio statutes do not explicitly provide
allocate the parental rights and responsibilities
for shared parenting during temporary
for the care of the children to both parents and
orders.
issue a shared parenting order requiring the
parents to share all or some of the aspects of the ● Ohio statutes do not mandate that a
physical and legal care of the children in court award shared parenting even in a
accordance with the approved plan for shared case where the court finds that the
parenting. submitted shared parenting plan is in the
best interest of the children. The
● Ohio statutes mandate consideration of a
language of the statute is permissive
“friendly parent” factor in determining a child’s
(“the court may”) not mandatory (“the
best interest. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §
court shall”). OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §
3109.04(F)(1)(f)
3109.04
● Ohio statutes include a policy statement
● Ohio statute has not been significantly
encouraging the sharing between the parents of
revised in light of the recommendations
the rights and responsibilities of raising their
of the task force set up to reform
children and setting up a task force to make
family law in Ohio. OHIO REV. CODE
recommendations for improving family statute in
ANN. § 3109.0401
Ohio. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 3109.0401
● Ohio does not have a specific statute
for false allegations of abuse in a family
law action.
59

State Grade Positives Negatives

Oklahoma D+ ● Oklahoma statutes include a friendly ● Oklahoma has no statutory

OKLA. STAT. TIT. 43, § 110.1 parent factor that does not quite rise to a preference for, or presumption of,
shared parenting policy statement: shared parenting (joint legal custody
OKLA. STAT. TIT. 43 § 112
encouraging “parents to share in the rights and shared physical custody) for
OKLA. STAT. TIT. 43, § and responsibilities of rearing their temporary or final orders. Indeed,
107.3.D children after the parents have separated Oklahoma has explicit language
or dissolved their marriage provided the denying any such presumption:
parents agree to cooperate and that “There shall be neither a legal
domestic violence, stalking, or harassing preference nor a presumption for or
behaviors … are not present in the against joint legal custody, joint
parental relationship.” OKLA. STAT. TIT. physical custody, or sole custody.”
43, § 110.1 OKLA. STAT. TIT. 43 § 112(C)2.
● Oklahoma statutes specifically permit (but
do not require or prefer) shared physical
custody in temporary orders. OKLA. STAT.
TIT. 43, § 110.1
● Oklahoma statutes treat false allegations
of abuse as a factor in custody decisions
or provide for sanctions. OKLA. STAT. TIT.
43, § 107.3.D
60

State Grade Positives Negatives

Oregon C ● Oregon statutes contain the following ● Oregon has no statutory

OR. REV. STAT. § 107.102 provisions. “In developing a parenting plan preference for, or presumption of,
under this subsection, the court may order shared parenting (joint legal
OR. REV. STAT. § 107.137
equal parenting time. If a parent requests custody and shared physical
OR. REV. STAT. § 107.149 that the court order equal parenting time in custody) for temporary or final
OR. REV. STAT. § 107.169 the parenting plan, the court may deny the orders.
request if the court determines, by written
● Oregon statutes effectively give
findings, that equal parenting time is not in
one parent a veto over shared
the best interests of the child or endangers
parenting. OR. REV. STAT. §
the safety of the parties.” OR. REV. STAT. §
107.169(3).
107.102(5)(c)
● Oregon statutes do not explicitly
● Oregon statutes contain a policy statement
provide for shared parenting
encouraging “parents to share in the rights
during temporary orders.
and responsibilities of raising their children
after the parents have separated or ● Oregon does not have a specific
dissolved their marriage.” OR. REV. STAT. § statute for false allegations of
107.149 abuse in a family law action.

● Oregon statutes require courts to consider a

“friendly parent” factor in determining a
child’s best interest. OR. REV. STAT. §
107.137
61

State Grade Positives Negatives

Pennsylvania D ● Pennsylvania statutes include a “friendly ● Pennsylvania has no statutory

23 PA. C. S. A. §5328 parent” factor for courts to employ in a preference for, or presumption of,
custody determination. 23 PA. C. S. A. shared parenting (joint legal
§5328 custody and shared physical
custody) for temporary or final
orders.
● Pennsylvania statutes do not
explicitly provide for shared
parenting during temporary orders.
● Pennsylvania statute does not
contain any policy statement or
other language encouraging shared
parenting.
● Pennsylvania does not have a
specific statute for false allegations
of abuse in a family law action.
62

State Grade Positives Negatives

Rhode Island F ● None ● Rhode Island has no statutory preference for, or

R.I. GEN. LAWS § 15-5-16 presumption of, shared parenting (joint legal custody and
shared physical custody) for temporary or final orders.
● Rhode Island statutes do not explicitly provide for shared
parenting during either temporary or final orders.
● Rhode Island statutes consistently speak of “the custodial
parent” and “the noncustodial parent.”
● Rhode Island statutes do not contain any policy statement
or other language encouraging shared parenting.
● Rhode Island statutes do not mandate consideration, or
even enumerate as a possible factor, a “friendly parent”
factor in determining a child’s best interest for purposes of
determining custody. A “friendly parent” factor is
mandated by case law (Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d
909, 913-14 (R.I. 1990).)
● Rhode Island does not have a specific statute for false
allegations of abuse in a family law action.
63

State Grade Positives Negatives

South Carolina D- ● South Carolina ● South Carolina has no statutory preference for, or
S.C. CODE ANN. § 63-15-30 statutes specify a presumption of, shared parenting (joint legal custody and
“friendly parent” shared physical custody) for temporary or final orders.
S.C. CODE ANN. § 63-15-40
factor as one ● South Carolina statutes do not explicitly provide for
S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-3-160 possible factor shared parenting during either temporary or final orders.
relevant to ● South Carolina statute does not contain any policy
determining a child’s statement or other language encouraging shared
best interest when parenting.
making custody ● South Carolina statutes do not mandate that a court
decisions. S.C. CODE consider a “friendly parent” factor in determining a child’s
ANN. § 63-15- best interest when making custody decisions. S.C. CODE
40(B)6 ANN. § 63-15-40(B)6
● South Carolina does not have a specific statute for false
allegations of abuse in a family law action.
64

State Grade Positives Negatives

South Dakota B- ● South Dakota statutes empower a court to order joint legal ● South Dakota has no
S. D. Codified Laws custody so that both parents retain full parental decision- statutory preference for,
§ 25-4A-13 making authority or to divide decision-making authority or presumption of, shared
between the parents. S. D. Codified Laws § 25-5-7.1 parenting (joint legal
S. D. Codified Laws custody and shared
§ 25-4A-24 ● South Dakota statutes have been strengthened to effectively
physical custody) for
establish a presumption in favor of equal parenting time
S. D. Codified Laws temporary or final orders.
during temporary orders. S. D. Codified Laws § 25-4A-13
§ 25-5-8 S. D. Codified Laws § 25-
S. D. Codified Laws ● South Dakota statutes expressly permit the court to "order 4A-26
§ 25-5-7.1 joint physical custody in such proportions as are in the best
● South Dakota statute
interests of the child, notwithstanding the objection of either
S.D. Codified laws does not contain any
parent." S. D. Codified Laws § 25-5-7.1
25-5-10.1 policy statement or other
● South Dakota statutes direct courts in ways that are designed language encouraging
to promote joint custody. Courts are required to consider shared parenting.
"friendly parent" factors (including whether a parent has
alienated a child from the other parent) and "[w]hether the
psychological and emotional needs and the development of
the child will suffer due to lack of active contact with, and
attention from, both parents if joint physical custody is not
granted. S. D. Codified Laws § 25-4A-24
● South Dakota statutes treat false allegations of abuse as a
factor in custody decisions. S. D. Codified Laws § 25-4A-24

(Continued on next page.) (Continued on next page.)

65

State Grade Positives Negatives

South Dakota (cont’d) B- ● South Dakota statutes provide that, while an unmarried ● South Dakota statutes
mother is entitled to custody of the child, this does not specify that “[t]he
S. D. Codified Laws
create a presumption that it is the child’s best interest husband and father, as
§ 25-4A-13
and a change of this initial custody determination does such, has no rights
S. D. Codified Laws not require a change in circumstances. S.D. codified laws superior to those of the
§ 25-4A-24 25-5-10.1 wife and mother in
regard to the care,
S. D. Codified Laws ● South Dakota statutes specify that "[w]hether a parent
custody, education, and
§ 25-5-8 has intentionally alienated or interfered with the other
control of the children of
parent's relationship with the child" is a negative factor in
S. D. Codified Laws the marriage, while such
a custody determination. S.D. Codified Laws 25-4A-24(9)
§ 25-5-7.1 husband and wife live
● South Dakota statutes specify that "[w]hether a parent separate and apart from
S.D. Codified laws has attempted to influence a custody determination by each other. S. D. Codified
25-5-10.1 alleging, falsely or without good cause, that the child or Laws § 25-5-8 There is
the sibling of the child has been subjected to physical or no similar provision
sexual abuse or abuse and neglect" is a negative factor in specifying that the wife
a custody determination. S.D. Codified Laws 25-4A- and mother, as such, has
24(14) no rights superior to
● South Dakota statutes specify that "[a] parent's those of the husband and
opposition to joint physical custody is not determinative father in these respects.
in itself, but only one factor for the court to consider" in
a custody determination. S.D. Codified Laws 25-4A-
24(14)
66

State Grade Positives Negatives

Tennessee B- ● Tennessee statutes require courts to consider a ● Tennessee has no statutory preference
“friendly parent” factor in determining a child’s best for, or presumption of, shared parenting
TENN. CODE
interest for custody decisions. (joint legal custody and shared physical
ANN. § 36-6-101
● Tennessee statutes define a non-custodial parent’s custody) for temporary or final orders.
TENN. CODE Indeed, Tennessee statutes explicitly
rights to receive school and medical records for the
ANN. § 36-6-106 reject any such preference or presumption
child and to have unimpeded telephone and mail
TENN. CODE contact with the child. TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-6-106 TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-6-101. (It is only
ANN. § 36-6-114 when the parents agree to joint custody
● A Tennessee statute that “permits both parents to
that Tennessee presumes that joint
enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of
custody is in the child’s best interest.)
the child” encourages shared parenting.TENN. CODE
● Tennessee statutes do not explicitly
ANN. § 36-6-106
provide for shared parenting during
● Tennessee statutes require courts to include written
temporary orders.
findings of fact and conclusions of law for custody ● “Maximum participation” can be broadly
orders unless both parents have agreed to the interpreted and does not rise to the level
parenting plan. TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-6- of a maximum parenting time provision.
101(a)(2)(A)(i) ● Tennessee has conflicting clauses which
● Tennessee statutes treat false allegations of abuse as a promote “maximum participation” on one
factor in custody decisions or provide for sanctions. hand but, on the other, state “neither a
TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-6-114 preference nor a presumption for or
● Tennessee statutes require that "[w]hen a child has against joint legal custody, joint physical
been removed from the home of one ( 1) parent and is custody or sole custody is established, but
in the care, custody, or guardianship of the department, the court shall have the widest discretion
the department shall consider and evaluate the child's to order a custody arrangement that is in
other natural or adoptive parent, if available, for the best interest of the child.” TENN.
placement before considering any other relative. CODE ANN. § 36-6-101
TENN. CODE ANN. § 37-2-414(d)
67

State Grade Positives Negatives

Texas B- ● Texas statutes provide for a presumption of joint legal ● Texas has no statutory
TEX. FAM. Code custody. preference for, or presumption
Ann. §153.001 ● Texas statutes include a policy statement encouraging of, equal shared physical
“parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their custody for temporary or final
TEX. FAM. Code
Ann. §153.013 child after the parents have separated or dissolved their orders.
marriage.” TEX. FAM. Code Ann. §153.001 ● Texas statutes do not explicitly
TEX. FAM. Code
● Texas statutes establish a "Alternative Beginning and provide for shared parenting
Ann. §153.134
Ending Possession Time" schedule, available at the during temporary orders.
TEX. FAM. Code option of either parent that places the child in the care ● Texas statutes do not require
Ann. §153.135
of each parent approximately 40% of the time, creating courts to consider “friendly
a default presumption of substantial shared physical parent” factors in awarding
custody. TEX FAM. Code Ann. §153.311 & §153.317 custody.
● Texas statutes explicitly deny
● Texas statutes require a court to provide, upon the
that an award of joint legal
request of the parent, written specific reasons for a
custody (“joint managing
custody order that varies from the standard possession
conservatorship”) entails “the
order. TEX FAM. Code Ann. §153.258
award of equal or nearly equal
● Texas statutes explicitly allow a court to order joint periods of physical possession
custody (called “joint conservatorship”) in the absence of of and access to the child.”
agreement between the parents on joint custody. TEX TEX. FAM. Code Ann.
FAM. Code Ann. §153.134 §153.135
● Texas statutes treat false allegations of abuse as a factor
in custody decisions or provide for sanctions. TEX.
FAM. Code Ann. §153.013
68

State Grade Positives Negatives

Utah B- ● Utah statutes allow an order of shared ● Utah has neither a preference nor a
UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9- parenting if the court finds it to be in the best presumption for or against joint
205 interest of the child even if only one parent physical custody or sole physical
requests it. UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9-205(1)(a) custody. UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9-
UTAH CODE ANN. §81-9-
204(7)(b)
205(1)(a) ● Utah statutes specify a “friendly parent” factor
in determining a child’s best interest for custody ● Utah does not have a specific statute
UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9-
decisions but courts are not explicitly required for false allegations of abuse in a
204(11)
to consider it. UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9- family law action.
204(4)(c)(ii)
● Utah statutes incorporate a shared parenting
policy. UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9-204(11)
● Utah statutes establish a rebuttable
presumption of joint legal custody. UTAH
CODE ANN. § 81-9-205(2)(a)
● Utah statutes' "minimum schedule for parent-
time for children 5 to 18 years of age" allows
the noncustodial parent to opt for a slight
amount of additional parenting time than is
provided by the standard schedule. UTAH
UTAH CODE ANN. § 81-9-302
69

State Grade Positives Negatives

Vermont C ● Vermont statutes include a policy statement ● Vermont has no statutory

VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15 § that “after parents have separated or dissolved preference for, or presumption of,
650 their civil marriage, it is in the best interests of shared parenting (joint legal custody
their minor child to have the opportunity for and shared physical custody) for
VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15 §
665A maximum continuing physical and emotional temporary or final orders.
contact with both parents, unless direct physical
● Vermont statutes do not explicitly
harm or significant emotional harm to the child
provide for shared parenting during
or a parent is likely to result from such contact.”
either temporary or final orders.
VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15 § 650
● Vermont statutes direct a court to
● Vermont statutes require a court to consider a
award parental rights primarily or
“friendly parent” factor in determining a child’s
solely to one parent when the
best interest for custody purposes. VT. STAT.
parents cannot agree to divide or
ANN. TIT. 15 § 665A
share parental rights and
● Vermont statutes require that parties filing responsibilities. This de facto
affidavits be notified it is a crime to make false parental veto of shared parenting
allegations of abuse. VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15 § serves to negate the otherwise
1106(b)(2)(C) strong maximum contact provisions.
VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 15 § 665A
● Vermont does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse
in a family law action.
70

State Grade Positives Negatives

Virginia C- ● Virginia statutes require a court to consider a ● Virginia has no statutory preference
VA. CODE ANN. § 20-124.3 “friendly parent” factor in determining a child’s for, or presumption of, shared
best interest for custody purposes. VA. CODE parenting (joint legal custody and
VA. CODE ANN. § 20-124.2
ANN. § 20-124.3 shared physical custody) for
temporary or final orders.
● Virginia statutes state: "The judge shall
communicate to the parties the basis of the ● Virginia statutes do not explicitly
decision either orally or in writing. Except in provide for shared parenting during
cases of consent orders for custody and either temporary or final orders.
visitation, this communication shall set forth the
● Virginia statute does not contain any
judge's findings regarding the relevant factors
policy statement or other language
set forth in this section." VA. CODE ANN. § 20-
encouraging shared parenting.
124.3.10
● The requirement to “consider”
● Virginia explicitly permits joint legal or physical
maximum parenting time is weakly
custody for temporary orders. VA. CODE ANN.
suggestive and overly broad.
§ 20-124.3
● Virginia does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse
in a family law action.
71

State Grade Positives Negatives

Washington C ● Washington statutes allow each parent to ● Washington has no statutory

WASH. REV. CODE § submit a temporary parenting plan with a preference for, or presumption of,
26.09.194 motion that it be incorporated into shared parenting (joint legal custody
temporary orders. This plan will include all and shared physical custody) for
WASH. REV. CODE §
26.09.187(3) aspects of decision-making authority as temporary or final orders.
well as residential arrangements for the
● Washington does not have a specific
child. This, in effect, permits joint legal
statute for false allegations of abuse
custody and shared physical custody
in a family law action.
during temporary orders. WASH. REV.
CODE § 26.09.194
● Washington statutes recognize three
methods a court may use to settle
decision-making authority in permanent
parenting plans: allocation of decision-
making authority; sole decision-making
authority; and mutual decision-making
authority. WASH. REV. CODE §
26.09.194
● Washington statutes contain language
encouraging shared parenting. WASH.
REV. CODE § 26.09.187(3)
72

State Grade Positives Negatives

West Virginia A+ ● West Virginia statutes establish "a presumption, ● West Virginia statutes
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-102a rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, that have no negatives
equal (50-50) custodial allocation is in the best interest related to shared
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-101 of the child.W. VA. CODE § 48-9-102a (See, also, W. parenting.
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-206 VA. CODE § 48-9-206.)
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-207 ● When the presumption of equal shared parenting is
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-209 rebutted, West Virginia statutes require courts "to
construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes
the time each parent has with the child and is
consistent with ensuring the child's welfare. W. VA.
CODE § 48-9-102a
● West Virginia statutes explicitly establish for temporary
orders "a presumption in favor of equal (50-50) physical
custody which is rebuttable by a preponderance of the
evidence. W. VA. CODE § 48-9-204(e)
● West Virginia statutes include the following provision:
"A parent who has sought and been denied equal (50-
50) physical custody, or who has been denied any
physical custody, may file an interlocutory appeal with
the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals as to
the temporary custodial allocation of the child or
children, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals shall
provide an expedited review of the order." W. VA.
CODE § 48-9-203(f)
(Continued on next page.)
73

State Grade Positives Negatives

West Virginia (Cont’d.) A+ ● West Virginia statutes have explicit domestic
violence provisions: the presumption of equal
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-102a
physical custody is refuted “[i]f one of the parties
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-101 has committed an act of domestic violence against
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-206 the party making the allegation or a family or
household member of either party and such
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-207
allegations are or have been proven in an
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-209 adversarial evidentiary hearing on the record by a
preponderance of the evidence” W. VA. CODE §
48-9-203 & § 48-9-205
● West Virginia statutes include the following
presumption: “If each of the child's legal parents
has been exercising a reasonable share of
parenting functions for the child, the court shall
presume that an allocation of decision-making
responsibility to both parents jointly is in the
child's best interests.” This presumption is
overcome if there is a history of domestic abuse.
W. VA. CODE § 48-9-206
● West Virginia statutes treat false allegations of
abuse as a factor in custody decisions or provide
for sanctions. W. VA. CODE § 48-9-209
74

State Grade Positives Negatives

Wisconsin B- ● Wisconsin statutes contain a presumption ● Wisconsin has no statutory

WIS. STAT. § 767.41 that joint legal custody is in the best preference for, or presumption of
interest of a child. “Except as provided in shared physical custody for
par. (d) [concerning domestic abuse], the temporary or final orders.
court shall presume that joint legal
● Wisconsin statutes do not explicitly
custody is in the best interest of the child.”
provide for shared parenting during
WIS. STAT. § 767.41(2)(am)
either temporary or final orders.
● Wisconsin statutes contain a strong
● Wisconsin statute does not contain
“friendly parent” provision. They state:
any policy statement or other
“Except as provided in par. (d) [concerning
language encouraging shared
domestic abuse], the court may not give
parenting.
sole legal custody to a parent who refuses
to cooperate with the other parent if the ● Wisconsin does not have a specific
court finds that the refusal to cooperate is statute for false allegations of abuse
unreasonable.” WIS. STAT. § 767.41(2)(c) in a family law action.

● Wisconsin statutes contain explicit

provisions which “maximizes the amount
of time the child may spend with each
parent.” WIS. STAT. § 767.41(4)(a)
75

State Grade Positives Negatives

Wyoming D ● Wyoming statutes mandate that courts ● Wyoming has no statutory

WYO. STAT. ANN. § 20-2- consider a “friendly parent” factor in preference for, or presumption of,
201 determining a child’s best interest shared parenting (joint legal custody
concerning custody. Courts shall consider and shared physical custody) for
“The ability and willingness of each parent temporary or final orders.
to allow the other to provide care without
● Wyoming statutes do not explicitly
intrusion, respect the other parent's rights
provide for shared parenting during
and responsibilities, including the right to
either temporary or final orders.
privacy. ” WYO. STAT. ANN. § 20-2-201
● Wyoming statutes consistently
speak of “the custodial parent” and
“the noncustodial parent.”
● Wyoming statute does not contain
any policy statement or other
language encouraging shared
parenting.
● Wyoming does not have a specific
statute for false allegations of abuse
in a family law action.
 2025
Shared Parenting Report Card

Address Phone Online

2 Abbott St. #543 Phone: 617.431.8019 Email: [email protected]

Woburn, MA 01801 Website: www.sharedparenting.org