Reference

Equal Parenting Law by State

A calibrated reference to where each US state stands on equal and shared parenting — enacted presumptions, court-consideration factors, pending bills, and where research is still in progress.

Last updated · Methodology

Status categories

Five categories cover the practical landscape. See Methodology for the full classification rules.

Rebuttable Presumption
State statute creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and approximately equal parenting time are in the child's best interest. Safety exception preserved.
Pending Bill
Active legislation under consideration to enact a rebuttable presumption or stronger shared-parenting framework.
Court Consideration Factor
Statute lists joint custody or shared parenting as one of several factors the court must consider; no presumption.
No Specific Provision
Statute uses the default best-interests standard with no specific shared-parenting language.
Needs Review
Status not yet verified by Both Parents Editorial. We don't fabricate classifications.
Filter by status

Showing all 51 states and DC.

Alabama

Court Consideration Factor

Alabama's Joint Custody Act lists joint custody as one option courts may consider. A limited presumption applies only when both parents request joint custody; otherwise courts weigh statutory factors under a best-interests standard.

Details

Current law: Alabama Code § 30-3-150 (State Policy) and § 30-3-152 (Joint Custody Act). The statute encourages frequent and continuing contact with both parents and lists factors courts must consider, including each parent's ability to cooperate. The presumption of joint custody applies only when both parents agree to it.

Bill status: HB19 (2026 Regular Session) would have created a rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody and substantial parenting time, but remained in House Judiciary subcommittee when the Legislature adjourned sine die on April 9, 2026.

Sources

HB19 did not advance before sine die adjournment, so it is not counted as currently pending.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Alaska

Court Consideration Factor

Alaska courts consider shared physical custody and joint legal custody among several statutory factors under a best-interests standard. There is no general presumption that shared or equal parenting time is in the child's best interest.

Details

Current law: Alaska Statute § 25.20.090 lists factors courts must consider in awarding shared child custody, including the child's needs, stability of each home, and the ability of parents to cooperate. A rebuttable presumption against custody applies where a parent has a history of domestic violence.

Sources

No active shared-parenting presumption bill identified in the 34th Legislature (2025-2026) at this review.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Arizona

Court Consideration Factor

Arizona's public policy favors substantial, frequent, meaningful, and continuing parenting time with both parents, and courts must adopt a plan that maximizes each parent's time. Statute does not establish a presumption of equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: ARS § 25-103 (public policy), § 25-403 (best-interests factors), § 25-403.01 (sole and joint legal decision-making and parenting time), § 25-403.02 (parenting plans, requiring the court to maximize each parent's parenting time consistent with the child's best interests).

Sources

Arizona's framework strongly emphasizes both-parent involvement but stops short of a statutory equal-time presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Arkansas

Rebuttable Presumption

Rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the child's best interest. Unique among the presumption states for requiring clear and convincing evidence to rebut.

Details

Current law: Arkansas Code § 9-13-101, as amended by Act 604 (2021). Defines joint custody as approximately equal time. Rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence.

Sources

Second state to enact a rebuttable presumption (after Kentucky). DV finding overrides the presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

California

Pending Bill

California courts decide custody under a best-interests standard. The current statutory presumption favoring joint custody applies only when both parents agree to joint custody. AB 1978 (2025-2026) would establish a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: California Family Code § 3080 establishes a presumption (affecting the burden of proof) that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where the parents have agreed to joint custody. Family Code § 3040 expressly states it establishes neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal, joint physical, or sole custody.

Pending bills

  • AB 1978 (2025-2026): California Equal Shared Parenting Act (view)

Bill status: Introduced February 13, 2026. Would create a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time (defined as ≥45% of overnights annually) when both parents are fit and reside within 25 miles of the child's school, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence.

Sources

Current statute is a court-factor framework. AB 1978 is currently pending in the active 2025-2026 session.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Colorado

Court Consideration Factor

Colorado allocates parental responsibilities under a best-interests standard with a legislative finding that frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the child is generally in the child's best interest. No statutory presumption of equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: Colorado Revised Statutes § 14-10-124 directs courts to allocate parental responsibilities based on the best interests of the child, with the child's safety paramount. Multiple statutory factors apply.

Bill status: SB 26-027 (PEACE Act) would have created a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time, but was postponed indefinitely by the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on February 3, 2026 (3-2 vote).

Sources

SB 26-027 was killed in committee and is no longer pending.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Connecticut

Court Consideration Factor

Connecticut courts decide custody under a best-interests standard with statutory factors. A presumption favoring joint custody applies only when both parents have agreed to joint custody.

Details

Current law: Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56a defines joint custody and creates a presumption (affecting the burden of proof) of joint custody where the parents have agreed. Section 46b-56 sets out the broader best-interests framework. If the court declines to award joint custody, it must state reasons for denial.

Sources

No active shared-parenting presumption bill identified at this review.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Delaware

Court Consideration Factor

Delaware courts decide legal custody and residential arrangements under a best-interests standard with eight statutory factors. Parents are deemed joint natural guardians with equal rights, but there is no statutory presumption of equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: 13 Del. C. § 722 sets out the best-interests standard and the eight factors courts must consider. 13 Del. C. § 701 establishes that mother and father are joint natural guardians with equal powers and duties.

Sources

Joint legal custody is commonly awarded in practice, but the statute provides factors rather than a presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

District of Columbia

Rebuttable Presumption

DC statute creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child, with an exception where the court finds an intrafamily offense, child abuse, child neglect, or parental kidnapping has occurred.

Details

Current law: D.C. Code § 16-914 establishes a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child. The presumption is rebutted, and a counter-presumption applies, where the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an intrafamily offense, child abuse, child neglect, or parental kidnapping has occurred.

Sources

Presumption covers joint custody broadly (legal and physical) but does not require equal parenting time.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Florida

Rebuttable Presumption

Rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing is in the child's best interest. Preponderance of evidence required to rebut.

Details

Current law: Florida Statutes § 61.13, as amended by HB 1301 (2023, effective July 1, 2023). Establishes a rebuttable presumption favoring equal time-sharing.

Sources

Third state to enact a rebuttable presumption (after Kentucky and Arkansas).

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Georgia

Court Consideration Factor

Georgia law explicitly disclaims any presumption favoring either parent or any particular form of custody. Joint custody is one option a judge may award based on best-interests factors.

Details

Current law: O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 governs the establishment and review of child custody and visitation. The statute reads: 'there shall be no presumption in favor of any particular form of custody, legal or physical, nor in favor of either parent.'

Pending bills

  • HB 96 (equal parenting time presumption, reintroduced across recent sessions) (view)

Bill status: Introduced; has not advanced to floor passage.

Sources

Separate 2026 child-support reforms include parenting-time adjustments but do not create a custody presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Hawaii

Court Consideration Factor

Hawaii courts may award joint custody in their discretion on application of either parent, guided by a best-interests standard. No statutory presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 571-46 and 571-46.1. Statute uses permissive language: 'joint custody may be awarded in the discretion of the court.'

Sources

No active 2025-2026 bill identified that would create a presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Idaho

Rebuttable Presumption

Idaho statute creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of the child, overcome by a preponderance of the evidence. The presumption does not require equal time and is reversed where a parent is a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.

Details

Current law: Idaho Code § 32-717B (Joint custody). The statute clarifies that joint physical custody need not be equal or alternating time-share; courts allocate actual time.

Sources

Joint physical custody under Idaho's presumption does not equal a 50/50 parenting-time mandate. Domestic-violence reversal preserved.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Illinois

Court Consideration Factor

Illinois allocates parenting time and parental responsibilities under a best-interests framework that weighs seventeen statutory factors, with a presumption that both parents are fit. There is no presumption of equal parenting time or joint custody.

Details

Current law: 750 ILCS 5/602.7 (Allocation of parental responsibilities: parenting time).

Sources

Prior equal-parenting-time bills have not advanced. SB 3524 (2025-2026) addresses shared-physical-care child-support calculations but does not create a custody presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Indiana

Court Consideration Factor

Indiana applies a best-interests standard with no presumption favoring either parent. Joint legal custody is evaluated under a separate set of statutory factors including cooperation, proximity, and the child's relationship with each parent.

Details

Current law: Ind. Code §§ 31-17-2-8 and 31-17-2-15. Statute states: 'there is no presumption favoring either parent.'

Pending bills

  • HB 1105 (2025) — Maximum practical parenting time (view)

Bill status: Referred to Committee on Judiciary January 8, 2025; did not advance to floor.

Sources

HB 1105 would shift the operative phrase from 'reasonable' to 'maximum practical' parenting time but stalled in committee.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Iowa

Court Consideration Factor

Iowa law directs courts to order custody arrangements that assure maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents and to consider joint custody whenever either parent requests it, but does not create a statutory presumption of joint physical care. A history of domestic abuse creates a rebuttable presumption against joint custody.

Details

Current law: Iowa Code § 598.41. If the court denies joint legal custody after a parent requests it, the court must cite clear and convincing evidence under the statutory factors.

Pending bills

  • HF 932 / SF 542 (2025-2026) — joint physical care presumption when joint legal custody is awarded (view)

Bill status: In committee.

Sources

Presumption-adjacent for joint legal custody but stops short of a presumption of joint or equal physical care; keeps Iowa at court-factor.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Kansas

Court Consideration Factor

Kansas statute lists joint legal custody first among permitted custodial arrangements and requires the court to make specific findings if it instead orders sole legal custody, but does not establish a statutory presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: K.S.A. § 23-3206 (Legal custodial arrangements) and related §§ 23-3201 through 23-3207.

Sources

Order-of-preference framing sometimes described in secondary sources as a 'preference,' but the statute uses permissive 'may' language.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Kentucky

Rebuttable Presumption

First state in the nation to enact a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and equal parenting time (2018). Domestic-violence finding overrides the presumption.

Details

Current law: Kentucky House Bill 528 (2018), codified into KRS 403. Creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equal parenting time are in the child's best interest. Passed 81-2 in the House, unanimously in the Senate.

Sources

Signed April 26, 2018 by Governor Matt Bevin. First-in-nation presumption law for permanent custody orders.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Louisiana

Rebuttable Presumption

Louisiana Civil Code directs that, absent a workable parental agreement, the court shall award custody to the parents jointly unless clear and convincing evidence shows that sole custody better serves the child. Implementing statutes further provide that, to the extent feasible and in the child's best interest, physical custody should be shared equally.

Details

Current law: La. Civ. Code arts. 131-134; La. R.S. 9:335 (Joint custody decree and implementation order).

Sources

Court 'shall award custody to the parents jointly' unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. DV and family-violence carve-outs (R.S. 9:341, 9:364) preserve safety exceptions.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Maine

Court Consideration Factor

Maine custody decisions are governed by a best-interests standard with multiple statutory factors. The legislature has declared a public policy favoring frequent and continuing contact with both parents, but the statute does not create a presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: 19-A M.R.S. § 1653 governs parental rights and responsibilities. Where parents agree to shared parental rights and responsibilities, the court must adopt that arrangement unless substantial evidence supports otherwise.

Sources

Prior shared-parenting proposals (e.g., LD 346 in the 127th Legislature) did not become law.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Maryland

No Specific Provision

Maryland uses a best-interests standard and allows courts to award custody to either parent or jointly. The statute explicitly states that neither parent has a presumed superior right to custody, but it does not create a presumption favoring joint custody or equal parenting time. Recent legislative sessions have seen proposed bills.

Details

Current law: Md. Code, Family Law § 5-203 provides that where parents live apart, a court may award custody to either parent or joint custody to both, with no presumption of superior right. Best-interests factors are largely judge-made (Taylor v. Taylor).

Bill status: SB 521 / HB 1505 (2025 Regular Session) — cross-filed proposals for a rebuttable presumption of joint legal custody and approximately equal physical custody — did not advance.

Sources

Classified as no-specific-provision because the code contains neither a joint-custody factor list nor a presumption — judge-made factors fill the gap.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Massachusetts

Court Consideration Factor

Massachusetts uses a best-interests standard with no presumption in favor of or against shared legal or physical custody at trial. The statute does provide for temporary shared legal custody on filing (absent abuse, neglect, or emergency conditions) and allows courts to order shared custody after considering a parent-submitted implementation plan.

Details

Current law: M.G.L. c. 208, § 31. Establishes temporary shared legal custody by default while a case is pending. Provides that 'there shall be no presumption either in favor of or against shared legal or physical custody at the time of the trial on the merits, except as provided for in section 31A.' Section 31A creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a parent with a documented pattern of abuse.

Bill status: Shared parenting proposals have been refiled across sessions but none enacted.

Sources

Temporary-order default for shared legal custody and implementation-plan mechanism for contested shared custody place MA above bare best-interests, but no presumption at final judgment.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Michigan

Pending Bill

Michigan requires courts to advise parents of joint custody and to consider an award of joint custody on request. Where parents agree to joint custody, the court must order it unless clear and convincing evidence shows otherwise. Active 2025-2026 legislation would add a presumption of equal or approximately equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: MCL 722.26a (Child Custody Act of 1970). Courts must advise parents of joint custody and, at either parent's request, consider an award of joint custody and state reasons on the record. Best-interest factors are at MCL 722.23.

Pending bills

  • HB 5211 / HB 5212 / HB 5213 (2025-2026): equal-parenting-time presumption package (view)
  • SB 941 / SB 942 (2025-2026): Senate companion package (view)

Bill status: Introduced November 4, 2025; pending in House Judiciary. State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section has filed opposing testimony.

Sources

Current statute has a presumption only when parents agree to joint custody. Without agreement, joint custody is a mandatory consideration. Pending bills would create a true presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Minnesota

Rebuttable Presumption

Minnesota law applies a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child upon either parent's request. There is no equivalent statutory presumption of joint physical custody, and a separate rebuttable presumption against joint custody applies where domestic abuse has occurred between the parents.

Details

Current law: Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1(b)(9). Parenting time is at Minn. Stat. § 518.175, which includes a rebuttable presumption of at least 25 percent parenting time for each parent.

Bill status: Bills to extend a presumption to joint physical custody and/or equal parenting time have been introduced in recent sessions but not enacted.

Sources

Presumption is for joint LEGAL custody, not joint physical custody or equal parenting time. The 25% parenting-time presumption is a floor, not a 50/50 default.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Mississippi

Rebuttable Presumption

Mississippi enacted HB 1662 in the 2026 regular session, creating a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time are in the best interests of the child for initial custody orders. Effective July 1, 2026.

Details

Current law: Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-24, amended by HB 1662 (2026). Adds a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time are in the best interest of the child for initial temporary and final orders entered on or after July 1, 2026. Rebuttable by a preponderance; family-violence exception flips the presumption.

Bill status: Enacted: HB 1662 (2026) signed by Governor Tate Reeves on April 8, 2026. Effective July 1, 2026.

Sources

Signed but not yet effective. Applies only to initial orders (not modifications). Display both current law and the upcoming change.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Missouri

Rebuttable Presumption

Missouri statute provides a rebuttable presumption that an award of equal or approximately equal parenting time to each parent is in the best interests of the child, rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence.

Details

Current law: R.S.Mo. § 452.375 (added by SB 35, 2023, effective August 28, 2023). 'There 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.' Rebuttable only by a preponderance, subject to parental agreement and the domestic-violence exception.

Sources

Among the strongest equal-parenting-time presumptions: targets time (not merely legal custody) and rebuttable only by preponderance, not clear and convincing.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Montana

Court Consideration Factor

Montana courts set parenting plans under a best-interests standard with an enumerated list of factors. The statute includes a presumption that frequent and continuing contact with both parents is in the child's best interest unless contact would be detrimental, but does not establish a presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-212 (Best interest of child). Final parenting plan criteria at § 40-4-234.

Sources

Frequent-and-continuing-contact provision is a presumption about contact but not about joint custody or time-share.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Nebraska

Court Consideration Factor

Nebraska law allows joint legal or physical custody when both parents agree or when the court finds it in the child's best interests, but there is no statutory presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time. Courts must develop a parenting plan and consider joint custody.

Details

Current law: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364. Custody may be placed jointly when parents agree or when the court finds joint custody to be in the child's best interests. The statute states 'no presumption shall exist that either parent is more fit or suitable than the other.' The Parenting Act (§ 43-2920 et seq.) requires parenting plans.

Pending bills

  • LB908 (2026) — adds research factor to best-interests analysis (view)

Bill status: Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled February 18, 2026; does not establish an automatic equal-time presumption.

Sources

LB908 is a factor amendment, not a presumption bill; classification stays at court-factor.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Nevada

Rebuttable Presumption

Nevada creates a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child when parents agree or when a parent has demonstrated intent to establish a meaningful relationship. For joint physical custody, the statute uses 'preference' language under the same conditions, with written findings required to deny.

Details

Current law: NRS 125C.002 (joint legal custody presumption) and NRS 125C.0025 (joint physical custody preference). NRS 125C.0035 sets best-interests framework. If the court denies a parent's application for joint physical custody, it must state its reasons.

Sources

Joint legal: explicit 'presumption, affecting the burden of proof.' Joint physical: 'preference' under same conditions — weaker than a formal presumption but stronger than a discretionary factor. Some analysts would classify the physical-custody piece as court-factor.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

New Hampshire

Rebuttable Presumption

New Hampshire contains a rebuttable presumption that joint decision-making responsibility is in the best interests of children. Following 2024's HB 185 (effective January 2025), state policy encourages approximately equal parenting time, and courts must make written findings explaining any order that departs from approximately equal parenting time.

Details

Current law: RSA Chapter 461-A. RSA 461-A:5 creates a rebuttable presumption favoring joint decision-making. RSA 461-A:2 declares state policy to 'encourage approximately equal parenting time.' RSA 461-A:6 (as amended by HB 185, 2024) requires written findings when a court concludes equal time is not in the child's best interest.

Sources

Two-track structure: explicit rebuttable presumption for joint decision-making, plus a 2024-amended requirement that courts justify departures from approximately equal parenting time.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

New Jersey

Pending Bill

Current New Jersey law declares that the rights of both parents are equal and permits joint custody, but does not contain a statutory presumption favoring joint custody or equal parenting time. Multiple bills are pending that would establish a rebuttable presumption of joint legal and equal or approximately equal physical custody.

Details

Current law: N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 provides 'the rights of both parents shall be equal' and permits the court to order joint custody. No statutory presumption of joint or equal parenting time currently exists.

Pending bills

  • S163 (2024-2025) — rebuttable presumption of joint legal and equal or approximately equal physical custody (view)
  • A854 (2026-2027) — rebuttable presumption against custody in certain circumstances; expanded best-interests factors (view)

Bill status: S163 referred to Senate Judiciary Committee (Jan 2024); A854 referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee (Jan 2026).

Sources

Equal rights of parents language in current statute is not a presumption of joint custody. Active pending legislation in current session would change classification to rebuttable-presumption if enacted.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

New Mexico

Rebuttable Presumption

New Mexico law establishes a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a child in an initial custody determination. The presumption is rebuttable through the best-interests analysis and the joint-custody factors in statute.

Details

Current law: NMSA 1978 § 40-4-9.1: 'There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a child in an initial custody determination.' Joint custody requires significant, well-defined periods of responsibility for each parent and joint consultation on major decisions. The presumption has been treated as rebuttable in case law (Jeantete v. Jeantete, 1990-NMCA-138).

Sources

Joint-custody presumption expressly does NOT imply equal time or financial responsibility — so this is a joint-custody presumption, not an equal-parenting-time presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

New York

Pending Bill

New York's custody framework relies on a best-interests-of-the-child analysis under Domestic Relations Law § 240, with no statutory preference or presumption for either parent and no presumption of joint or equal parenting time. Companion bills in the 2025-2026 session would establish a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.

Details

Current law: Domestic Relations Law § 240. New York case law (Friederwitzer, Eschbach) confirms there is no presumption favoring either parent or joint custody. Courts evaluate non-exhaustive factors.

Pending bills

  • S4128 (2025-2026) — presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of shared parenting (view)
  • A4786 (2025-2026) — Assembly companion bill (view)

Bill status: S4128 referred to Senate Children and Families Committee (Feb 2025); A4786 referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee (Feb 2025).

Sources

Active pending companion bills in the current session would establish a shared-parenting presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

North Carolina

Pending Bill

Current North Carolina law requires courts to consider joint custody when either parent requests it, but applies no presumption favoring either parent or any particular custody arrangement. A 2025 Senate bill would establish a presumption of joint custody and shared parenting.

Details

Current law: N.C.G.S. § 50-13.2. 'Joint custody to the parents shall be considered upon the request of either parent' and 'no presumption shall apply as to who will better promote the interest and welfare of the child.'

Pending bills

  • S162 (2025-2026) — 'Shared Parenting'; would establish a presumption of joint custody (view)

Bill status: Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Operations (Feb 26, 2025).

Sources

Statute requires joint custody to be 'considered,' which is materially weaker than a presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

North Dakota

Court Consideration Factor

North Dakota allocates parental rights and responsibilities under a multi-factor best-interests analysis. There is no statutory presumption of equal residential responsibility or equal parenting time, though courts may award equal arrangements when supported by the factors.

Details

Current law: N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.1 (best interests). § 14-09-06.2 enumerates thirteen best-interests factors, including each parent's love, affection, capacity to care, willingness to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent, stability, moral fitness, and domestic violence history.

Bill status: SB 2383 (69th Legislative Assembly, 2025) would have created a presumption of equal residential responsibility and equal parenting time; defeated on Senate second reading Feb 19, 2025 (12 yea, 35 nay).

Sources

Most recent shared-parenting bill (SB 2383) was defeated in 2025.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Ohio

Pending Bill

Ohio's current custody law treats shared parenting as one option among several, requiring an affirmative request and a court-approved plan rather than starting from a presumption of joint or equal time. A 2025 reform bill (SB 174) has passed the Ohio Senate and is pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

Details

Current law: Ohio Revised Code 3109.04. Shared parenting is available when at least one parent files a plan and the court finds the plan is in the best interest of the children. No statutory presumption favoring shared parenting or equal parenting time.

Pending bills

  • SB 174 (2025-2026): restructures custody around parenting plans for both parents (view)

Bill status: Passed Ohio Senate November 2025; pending in House Judiciary Committee as of May 2026.

Sources

SB 174 status verified via Ohio Legislative Service Commission reports and committee testimony documents.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Oklahoma

Court Consideration Factor

Oklahoma's custody statute directs courts to assure children frequent and continuing contact with both parents and to consider joint custody, but explicitly establishes no presumption or preference for or against any form of custody.

Details

Current law: Okla. Stat. tit. 43 § 112: 'there shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody.'

Pending bills

  • HB 1082 (2025-2026): would add a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and equally shared parenting time (view)

Bill status: Introduced February 2025; reports on final disposition conflict. Final enactment unverified — treat as pending.

Sources

Final disposition of HB 1082 should be re-verified at official bill tracker — advocacy summaries describe an effective date of Nov 1, 2025 but legislative trackers indicate the bill remained in committee.

Last reviewed · Confidence: Medium

Oregon

Court Consideration Factor

Oregon does not presume joint custody or equal parenting time. A court cannot order joint custody unless both parents agree to it; when parents do agree, the court may not override that agreement. Custody decisions otherwise rest on a best-interests analysis.

Details

Current law: Oregon Revised Statutes 107.169 (joint custody requires both parents' agreement) and 107.137 (best-interests factors).

Bill status: HB 3095 (2025) creating a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time died in committee at sine die adjournment June 27, 2025.

Sources

HB 3095 final status confirmed as died in committee.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Pennsylvania

Pending Bill

Pennsylvania law directs courts to weigh sixteen best-interests factors when awarding any form of custody, with substantial weight given to factors affecting child safety. No statutory presumption favoring shared physical custody or equal parenting time. A 2025 bill (HB 1499) would create a rebuttable presumption that shared legal and physical custody with equal parenting time is in the best interest of the child.

Details

Current law: 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328. Subsection (b) prohibits gender-based preferences.

Pending bills

  • HB 1499 (2025-2026): rebuttable presumption of shared legal and physical custody with equal parenting time (view)

Bill status: Introduced May 28, 2025; in House Judiciary Committee with over two dozen cosponsors as of May 2026.

Sources

Bill text confirmed via legislature and tracking sources.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Rhode Island

Pending Bill

Rhode Island custody law focuses on the best interests of the child and contemplates one parent having custody while the other has reasonable visitation. No statutory presumption of joint legal custody or shared physical placement. A 2026 bill (H 7821) would create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody and shared placement are in the child's best interests.

Details

Current law: R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16. Provides for reasonable visitation by the non-custodial parent, with consideration of domestic violence evidence.

Pending bills

  • H 7821 (2026): rebuttable presumption of joint legal custody and shared placement (view)

Bill status: Introduced in 2026 General Assembly session; pending.

Sources

Statute reviewed via Justia (secondary). Recommend re-verifying H 7821 status directly via webserver.rilegislature.gov as session progresses.

Last reviewed · Confidence: Medium

South Carolina

Pending Bill

South Carolina law permits the court to award sole or joint custody based on the best interests of the child, with no presumption for or against either arrangement and no requirement to find exceptional circumstances for joint custody. A 2025-2026 bill (HB 4540) would codify additional parenting-plan requirements.

Details

Current law: S.C. Code § 63-15-230. Allows award of joint or sole custody. When custody is contested or joint custody is requested, the court must consider all options and state its reasoning. Parenting time is allocated separately in the child's best interests.

Pending bills

  • HB 4540 (2025-2026): parenting plan requirements (view)

Bill status: Introduced May 8, 2025; in House Committee on Judiciary as of May 2026.

Sources

Primary statute and bill verified directly through South Carolina Legislature Online.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

South Dakota

Court Consideration Factor

South Dakota's custody statutes direct the court to act in the best interests of the child, providing that neither parent shall be given preference. A separate provision lists factors when a parent requests joint physical custody, but no general statutory presumption of joint custody or equal parenting time exists for final orders.

Details

Current law: S.D. Codified Laws § 25-4-45 (best-interests standard, neither parent preferred). § 25-4A-24 lists factors when a parent requests joint physical custody. § 25-4A-13 has been interpreted to favor equal parenting time during temporary orders.

Bill status: SB 172 (2025) creating a rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody passed the Senate 20-13 on Feb 21, 2025; failed on reconsideration in the House 35-34 on Mar 10, 2025.

Sources

SD Legislature site requires JavaScript; statute text confirmed via Justia codification and corroborating sources.

Last reviewed · Confidence: Medium

Tennessee

Court Consideration Factor

Tennessee law presumes joint custody is in a child's best interests only when both parents have agreed; in contested cases the statute establishes neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody.

Details

Current law: Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2). Presumption of joint custody applies only on parental agreement (rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence). Outside that scenario, no preference or presumption. Best-interests factors at § 36-6-106; permanent parenting plans at § 36-6-404.

Bill status: HB 1131 (2025) presumption of equally shared parenting time passed Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee Mar 18, 2025 but failed in the House Judiciary Committee Apr 9, 2025. Companion SB 1331 did not advance.

Sources

Statute text verified via Justia and corroborated by Tennessee General Assembly fiscal memo for HB 1131.

Last reviewed · Confidence: Medium

Texas

Court Consideration Factor

Texas law presumes joint managing conservatorship (shared decision-making) is in a child's best interest, but the statute expressly does not require equal or near-equal physical possession. Parenting time is set through the Standard Possession Order or custom orders.

Details

Current law: Texas Family Code Chapter 153. § 153.131(b) creates a rebuttable presumption that joint managing conservatorship is in the child's best interest (removed on a finding of family violence). § 153.135 expressly states that joint managing conservatorship 'does not require the award of equal or nearly equal periods of physical possession.' § 153.252 provides the Standard Possession Order.

Bill status: SB 849 (89th Legislature, 2025) would have established an equal parenting presumption for children three and older; died at sine die June 2, 2025. No equivalent bill currently active.

Sources

The JMC presumption is about shared legal/decision-making status, not physical custody time. § 153.135 is explicit. For purposes of equal parenting time / shared physical custody, Texas is court-factor (Level 2).

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Utah

Court Consideration Factor

Utah recognizes joint legal and joint physical custody and includes a statutory framework encouraging both parents to be involved, but there is no presumption favoring joint physical custody or equal parenting time. Courts decide physical custody on a best-interest, case-by-case basis.

Details

Current law: Utah Code Title 81, Chapter 9 (formerly Title 30, Chapter 3), effective September 1, 2024. Joint physical custody is defined as the child residing with each parent more than 30% of overnights per year.

Bill status: SB 208 (2025 General Session) addressed parent-time and custody amendments. No 2026 bill establishing a statewide rebuttable presumption of equal physical custody identified.

Sources

Utah's statute previously expressed a legislative finding favoring joint legal custody but did not establish a presumption for joint physical custody or equal parenting time.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Vermont

No Specific Provision

Vermont does not have a presumption favoring shared parenting or equal parenting time. Courts may order parental rights and responsibilities to be shared only if both parents agree; when parents disagree, the statute directs the court to award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent based on best-interest factors.

Details

Current law: 15 V.S.A. § 665(a): 'when the parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.' Section 665(b) lists nine best-interest factors. The court may not apply a preference based on sex of parent or financial resources.

Bill status: Multiple shared-parenting bills have been introduced over decades; none enacted. No active 2025-2026 bill identified.

Sources

More restrictive than typical court-factor states: the statute affirmatively defaults to sole/primary allocation when parents disagree, effectively the opposite of a shared-parenting presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Virginia

Court Consideration Factor

Virginia courts may award joint legal, joint physical, or sole custody and must consider the best interests of the child. The statute explicitly provides that there is no presumption in favor of any form of custody and no presumption favoring either parent.

Details

Current law: Virginia Code § 20-124.2: 'the court shall consider and may award joint legal, joint physical, or sole custody, and there shall be no presumption in favor of any form of custody.' Best-interest factors are listed at § 20-124.3.

Bill status: No active 2025-2026 General Assembly bill establishing a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time identified.

Sources

Virginia's statute explicitly disclaims any presumption in favor of any custody form.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Washington

Court Consideration Factor

Washington determines parenting plans and residential schedules based on multiple statutory factors and the best interests of the child, with no presumption of equal residential time. Courts may order substantially equal residential time when it serves the child's best interests, but that is permissive rather than presumed.

Details

Current law: RCW 26.09.184 (permanent parenting plan) and RCW 26.09.187 (criteria). The court 'may order that a child frequently alternate his or her residence between the households of the parents for brief and substantially equal intervals of time if such provision is in the best interests of the child.' RCW 26.09.191 sets out restrictions in cases involving abuse or neglect.

Bill status: HB 1620 (2025), Ch. 166, Laws of 2025, signed April 25, 2025 (effective July 27, 2025), amended RCW 26.09.191 on supervised visitation; did not create an equal-time presumption.

Sources

Statute defines 'substantially equal residential time' (≥45% with each parent) for limited purposes such as the relocation framework, but this is a definition for evaluating other statutes, not a presumption.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

West Virginia

Rebuttable Presumption

West Virginia has a rebuttable presumption that equal (50-50) custodial allocation is in the best interest of the child. The presumption applies in both temporary and final parenting plans and may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Details

Current law: West Virginia Code § 48-9-102a (enacted by SB 463, 2022, effective June 2022): 'a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, that equal (50-50) custodial allocation is in the best interest of the child.' If rebutted, the court must construct a schedule that maximizes each parent's time. § 48-9-206 directs that custodial time shall be equal unless otherwise agreed or harmful to the child.

Sources

Among the strongest equal-parenting-time presumptions. Statutory, applies to temporary and final orders, covers shared physical custody.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Wisconsin

Pending Bill

Wisconsin presumes that joint legal custody (shared major-decision authority) is in a child's best interest in initial determinations. There is no corresponding presumption of equal physical placement; instead, the court is directed to set a placement schedule that maximizes time with each parent. Active 2025 bills would create an equal-placement presumption.

Details

Current law: Wisconsin Statute § 767.41. § 767.41(2)(am): 'the court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child' (subject to listed exceptions). § 767.41(4)(a)2 directs courts to maximize time with each parent.

Pending bills

  • SB 161 (2025): presumption of equalizing physical placement to the highest degree (view)
  • AB 262 (2025): requires specific findings when granting less than 50% physical placement (view)

Bill status: Both pending in committee as of last review.

Sources

The joint legal custody presumption is about decision-making, not parenting time. The 'maximize time with each parent' directive does not require equal placement. Pending 2025 bills would move Wisconsin to Level 4 if enacted.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Wyoming

Rebuttable Presumption

Wyoming has a statutory presumption that shared custody, defined as both joint legal custody and joint physical custody with the child residing with each parent for substantially equal time, is in the best interest of the child. Effective July 1, 2025.

Details

Current law: Wyoming Statute Title 20, Chapter 2, Article 2 (as amended by SF 117, 2025). Effective July 1, 2025: the court shall enter an order of shared custody (joint legal and joint physical custody with substantially equal time) unless (i) parties agree otherwise, (ii) DV finding, (iii) cruelty/abuse/neglect finding, (iv) parties reside >300 miles apart, or (v) clear and convincing evidence shows a different arrangement is in the child's best interest.

Sources

Among the strongest presumptions: default rebuttal standard is clear and convincing evidence. Applies only to new custody actions filed on or after July 1, 2025; pre-existing orders are not automatically modified.

Last reviewed · Confidence: High

Methodology

This tracker reports each state's statutory posture toward equal or shared parenting — what the law says about the default starting position for custody decisions. It does not report judicial trends, county variations, or the specifics of any individual case.

Five status categories cover the landscape. A state moves into a stronger category only when we can verify the classification against a primary source — the state statute itself, not advocacy summaries or law firm SEO. States we have not yet researched are marked Needs Review; we don't fabricate classifications.

Equal co-parenting applies when both parents are fit, willing, and able, and when there are no substantiated safety concerns such as abuse, neglect, coercive control, or serious parental unfitness. Every rebuttable-presumption statute discussed here preserves an explicit safety exception by design.

For the full classification rules, source-acceptance policy, and update cadence, see the methodology document. The cumulative source bibliography is in the source log; change history is in update notes.

Legal disclaimer

This page is informational, not legal advice. State family law is detailed, fact-specific, and subject to amendment. We do not address case law, judicial interpretation, county-level variations, or the specifics of any individual case. Readers facing custody questions in their own jurisdiction should consult licensed counsel.

The tracker reports our best-effort reading of the statute as of each entry's last-reviewed date. Where we are uncertain, the state is marked Needs Review rather than classified speculatively. To report a correction, email contact@bothparents.org with the state in question and a primary source supporting a different classification.