I suppose it is a matter of definition, at some point. It may be true that any type of shared parenting or joint custody was rare enough, not that long ago, and custody was routinely granted to mothers (but it also was not long before that, when mothers and children were considered property of the father). And it may also be true that, in the last twenty years, every state now allows, at least in theory, joint parenting or shared custody.
But this is a case of "glass - half-empty of half-full?" Yes, undoubtedly every state legislature currently allows joint custody, in fact, excepting egregious circumstances of unfitness, states now routinely mandate standard minimum visitation to the NCP. But is this what Mr. Levy is crowing about? Is this the progress to which he alludes? If so, I can only agree that it is progress compared to what came immediately before, but not compared to what should be inalienable rights of parents and children.
Standard minimum visitation is precisely the problem. 1) It doesn't adequately protect either the parent's or the child's interests, and 2) that unequal treatment is inconsistent with the 5th and 14th amendments, and 3) let's not forget those perverse financial state and federal incentives which propagate this whole mess. While standard minimum visitation may be a small step forward, it remains a thousand large steps away from the basic minimum that a civilized society should guarantee to its citizenry (of course, that presumes we live in a civilized society, which is debatable, of course).
To my knowledge, there are only three states which have any REAL presumption of REAL shared parenting, and even those are limited in application and effect, and still a long ways away from nirvana. Those are WI (with statutory presumption of joint legal, but not physical, custody), OK (with statutory right of first refusal of 50/50 physical custody, but only if requested by the parent, with no proactive stance by the courts or legislature to encourage this result), and the recent IA legislation, which appears to follow somewhat the OK legislation.
Granted, none of these three states had this just a few short years ago, and it definitely is trending in the right direction. But a trend in the right direction is of little use to the enslaved person, who demands, requires, and is due full liberty now and forever after.
I don't know why Mr. Levy chooses to "spin" the story this way, perhaps by making it seem like shared parenting is already quite accepted, he feels there is a better chance of reaching the ultimate goal. I certainly do not doubt that Levy shares the same goals that this site does. I suppose it's a question of politics for him.
Well, my only purpose was to suggest he overstates the acceptance of shared parenting, and how, and why I feel it may not be the best strategy. But I can defer to Levy on the point, he has been in this battle longer than most of us, has better contacts, and is more likely to be there when the final ink is penned in the legislative books (though I plan on being there too, somehow).
JMHO. Good Luck.