ALABAMA
Section 30-3-150
State policy.
Joint Custody.-It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parets who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage
ALASKA
AS 25.20.070
Unless it is shown to be detrimental to the welfare of the child, the child shall have, to the greatest degree practical, equal access to both parents during the time that the court considers an award of custody under AS 25.20.060 - 25.20.130.
ARKANSAS
Title 9, § 9-13-101.
Award of custody.
(a) In an action for divorce, the award of custody of the children of the marriage shall be made without regard to the sex of the parent, but solely in accordance with the welfare and best interests of the children.
(b)(1) (A) (i) When in the best interests of a child, custody shall be awarded in such a way so as to assure the frequent and continuing contact of the child with both parents.
(2) To this effect, in making an order for custody to either parent, the court may consider, among other facts, which parent is more likely to allow the child or children frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent.
CALIFORNIA
FAMILY CODE SECTION 3020-3032
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to assure that children have frequent andcontinuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and toencourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy, except where the contactwould not be in the best interest of the child, as provided in Section 3011. (Section 3011 references abuse, illegal substance use, etc.)
SECTION 10. 1410124, Colorado Revised Statutes:
14-10-124. Best interests of child. (1) Legislative declaration. The general assembly finds and declares that it is in the best interest of all parties to encourage frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children of the marriage after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. In order to effectuate this goal, the general assembly urges parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing and to encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children and the parents.
CONNECTICUT
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
Section 46b-56a joint custody
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
D.C. Code 16-911. Alimony pendente lite; suit money; enforcement; custody of children. (a)(5) and 16-914. Retention of jurisdiction as to alimony and custody of children. (a)(2)
Unless the court determines that it is not in the best interest of the child, the court may issue an order that provides for frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor child or children and for the sharing of responsibilities of child- rearing and encouraging the love, affection, and contact between the minor child or children and the parents regardless of marital status.
FLORIDA
61.13 Custody and support of children; visitation rights; power of court in making orders.
(b)1. The court shall determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. After considering all relevant facts, the father of the child shall be given the same consideration as the mother in determining the primary residence of a child irrespective of the age or sex of the child.
GEORGIA
Case Law: Court of Appeals of Georgia, Case No. A93A0698, 7/2/93 IN the INTEREST of A.R.B., a child
In a unanimous opinion, presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley stated: "Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose wellbeing is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."
The A.R.B. case was subsequently heard by the Supreme Court of Georgia, which upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that, according to public policy of Georgia, joint custody was in the best interests of children when both parents are fit.
(**Note: Georgia is where my initial divorce and custody proceedings took place. Also, Georgia is the only state to give the child a right to choose with which parent they want to live, and that is at age 14. Unless the chosen parent is proven unfit by the court, the court has to abide by the child's wishes and rule in accordance with those wishes.**)
IDAHO
32-717B.
(1) The court may award either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or bothas between the parents or parties as the court determines is for the bestinterests of the minor child or children. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), of this section, absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children.
(5) There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.
ILLINOIS
750 ILCS 5/602
(c) Unless the court finds the occurrence of ongoing abuse as defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, the court shall presume that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, mental, moral, and emotional wellbeing of their child is in the best interest of the child.
IOWA
598.41 Custody of children.
1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent.
KANSAS
Chapter 60.--PROCEDURE, CIVIL
Article 16 - 60-1610 DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE
(4) Types of custodial arrangements. Subject to the provisions of this article, the court may make any order relating to custodial arrangements which is in the best interests of the child. The order shall include, but not be limited to, one of the following, in the order of preference:
(A) Joint custody. The court may place the custody of a child with both parties on a shared or joint-custody basis. In that event, the parties shall have equal rights to make decisions in the best interests of the child under their custody. When a child is placed in the joint custody of the child's parents, the court may further determine that the residency of the child shall be divided either in an equal manner with regard to time of residency or on the basis of a primary residency arrangement for the child. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit a plan for implementation of a joint custody order upon finding that both parents are suitable parents or the parents, acting individually or in concert, may submit a custody implementation plan to the court prior to issuance of a custody decree. If the court does not order joint custody, it shall include in the record the specific findings of fact upon which the order for custody other than joint custody is based.
KENTUCKY
Case Law: Chalupa v. Chalupa, Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 90-CA-001145-MR; (May 1, 1992).
Judge Schroder, writing for the majority:
A divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from their children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the children's upbringing.... The difficult and delicate nature of deciding what is in the best interest of the child leads this Court to interpret the child's best interest as requiring a trial court to consider joint custody first, before the more traumatic sole custody.
LOUISIANA
Art. 132. Award of custody to parents
If the parents agree who is to have custody, the court shall award custody in accordance with their agreement unless the best interest of the child requires a different award.
In the absence of agreement, or if the agreement is not in the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to the parents jointly;
MAINE
Title 19-A 1653. Parental rights and responsibilities
C. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that it is in the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy.
(1) Allocated parental rights and responsibilities, shared parental rights and responsibilities or sole parental rights and responsibilities, according to the best interest of the child as provided in subsection 3. An award of shared parental rights and responsibilities may include either an allocation of the child's primary residential care to one parent and rights of parent-child contact to the other parent, or a sharing of the child's primary residential care by both parents. If either or both parents request an award of shared primary residential care and the court does not award shared primary residential care of the child, the court shall state in its decision the reasons why shared primary residential care is not in the best interest of the child;
MASSACHUSETTS
ALM GL ch. 208, 31 (2004)
A presumption for shared legal custody at temporary hearing; at permanent hearing, shared parenting an option if one parent requests it. In making an order or judgement relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine their custody
MICHIGAN
MCL 722.26a - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
MISSISSIPPI
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
Title 93, Chapter 5
MISSOURI
Chapter 452
Dissolution of Marriage, Divorce, Alimony and Separate Maintenance
Section 452.375
4. The general assembly finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state that frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage is in the best interest of the child, except for cases where the court specifically finds that such contact is not in the best interest of the child, and that it is the public policy of this state to encourage parents to participate in decisions affecting the health, education and welfare of their children, and to resolve disputes involving their children amicably through alternative dispute resolution. In order to effectuate these policies, the court shall determine the custody arrangement which will best assure both parents participate in such decisions and have frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with their children so long as it is in the best interests of the child.
5. Prior to awarding the appropriate custody arrangement in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider each of the following as follows:
(1) Joint physical and joint legal custody to both parents, which shall not be denied solely for the reason that one parent opposes a joint physical and joint legal custody award. The residence of one of the parents shall be designated as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes;
(2) Joint physical custody with one party granted sole legal custody. The residence of one of the parents shall be designated as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes;
(3) Joint legal custody with one party granted sole physical custody;
(4) Sole custody to either parent; or
(5) Third-party custody or visitation:
(**Note: Missouri is one state where I am well versed in the laws. Missouri considers the above custody situations in the order they are listed, with joint physical and legal being the first on the list. Only if joint physical and legal is not acceptable due to abuse, neglect, etc. are they then to move down the list.**)
NEVADA
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
NRS 125.490 Joint custody.
1. There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody would be in the best interest of a minor child if the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RSA 458:17
presumption in favor of joint legal custody.
UPDATE: On December 1, 2004, the New Hampshire State Commission to Study Child Support and Related Child Custody Issues issued a report concluding that "there should be a rebuttable presumption for the courts to initially consider both parents equal in their parenting abilities and start the custody determination with a 50/50 parenting arrangement." and "it is important for the courts to understand that such a rebuttable presumption can work in the children's best interest by reducing animosity and litigiousness between parents, providing equality in parenting roles and responsibilities and allowing children to have the benefit of a significant relationship with both parents."
NEW MEXICO
Custody: §§ 40-4-9, 40-4-9.1
A. There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interestes of a child in an initial custody determination.
OHIO
ORC Ann. 3109.04 (2004)
(c) Whenever possible, the court shall require that a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section ensure the opportunity for both parents to have frequent and continuing contact with the child, unless frequent and continuing contact with any parent would not be in the best interest of the child.
OKLAHOMA
Statutes as Section 110.1 of Title 43, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. To effectuate this policy, if requested by a parent, the court shall provide substantially equal access to the minor children to both parents at a temporary order hearing, unless the court finds that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child. The burden of proof that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child shall be upon the parent requesting sole custody.
OREGON
107.105 Provisions of decree. (1) Whenever the court grants a decree of marital annulment, dissolution or separation,
it has power further to decree as follows:
(a) For the future care and custody, by one party or jointly, of all minor children of the parties born, adopted or conceived during the marriage, and for minor children born to the parties prior to the marriage, as the court may deem just and proper pursuant to ORS 107.137. The court may hold a hearing to decide the custody issue prior to any other issues. When appropriate, the court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children.
PENNSYLVANIA
Consolidated Statutes Annotated, Title 23, Sections 5302, 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5306].
5301. The General Assembly declares that it is the public policy of this Commonwealth, when in the best interest of the child, to assure a reasonable and continuing contact of the child with both parents after a separation or dissolution of the marriage and the sharing of the rights and responsibilities of child rearing by both parents
TENNESSEE
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree
36-6-101.
TEXAS
Texas law provides a minimum of 42% time with the non-custodial parent, if the non-custodial parent chooses to exercise the option in Section 153.317. Texas law is complex, and according to the National Fathers Resource Center , "Many dads don't know about this, and their attorneys don't tell them, so they fail to make the election, which means that they will be stuck with 'standard possession' rather than what we commonly refer to as expanded standard possession." By exercising other parts of the Texas statutes, it is often possible to extend the time allocation to roughly 50%.
CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 153.001. Public Policy.
"(a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;"
SUBCHAPTER C. PARENT APPOINTED AS SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR
Sec. 153.131. Presumption That Parent to be Appointed Managing Conservator.
"(b) It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child."
VERMONT
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree
VIRGINIA
§ 20-124.2. Court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements.
B. In determining custody, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, when appropriate, and encourage parents to share in the responsibilities of rearing their children
WASHINGTON
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
26.09 RCW
(1) There shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of minor children unless:
(a) The parents have agreed to an award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent; or
(b) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children.
(2) A parent alleging that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children shall have the burden of establishing the allegation.
WISCONSIN
presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
<>767.24 (2) (am) "The court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child."
767.24 (4) (a) "The court shall set a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and accommodations for different households".
So, that's 31 states in the US that have either a presumption of shared custody, or some statutory language stating it is the public policy of the state that frequent contact with both parents is in the child's best interest. 19 states have no such presumption, or the presumption is for legal custody only and not physical custody. 31 out of 50 is not a terrible start.