I have some good news for you as far as support for "Equal parenting" goes amongst UK forums like this one. I'd say it was just as widespread as it appears to be in the US.
It is a bit disconcerting for me to hear that most of your states have already got, "in effect", a rebuttable presumption of contact for fit parents (which you call a rebuttable presumption of joint custody). I say this because I hear of so many breakdowns in contact for non-custodial parents over there, which I hoped the legal presumption I'm calling for would curtail. Maybe it comes down to this "best interests of the child" principle (BIC), and whether the legal system adheres to it in the strictest sense ("paramount" principle etc.) or allows it to be a primary concern amongst other criteria.
I was doing some much needed tidying up yesterday and came across a letter, the content of which was the response I received from a Westminster MP a year or so ago. I'd brought up the question of BIC with him and he'd reminded me that it had been a principle in child custody and contact cases for fifty plus years. He also affirmed his support for children's views being heard on contact, and taken more notice of as the child gets older, but I want to return to his statement about BIC for a moment.
I've probably told you before that according to the 1937 Gibson's Divorce law manual, quoting even earlier laws on BIC says (I'll give you the full paragraph here):
"The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, s.1, provides that where in any Court the custody or upbringing of an infant is in question the Court, in its decision shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration, and shall not take into consideration whether, from any other point of view, the claim of the father, or any common law right of the father, is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the mother is superior to that of the father."
However, it then goes on to state this:
"The fact that the husband is guilty (meaning of adultery) does not absolutely bar his right to the custody of his children; thus if he has been kind to them, they may be left with him, with the liberty of access by the wife; but generally in such cases the children are committed to the mother's care. Custody is rarely given to a guilty wife, though this has been done in special cases, e.g. where the husband consents and the wife's parents undertake to look after the children."
So, once again apologies if I've bored you with this before, but even with the "first and paramount consideration" being the welfare of the infant, the infidelity of one of their parents, particularly their mother (who may not even be granted access/contact the book goes on to say, if she continues to live in adultery)), created a situation where the courts no longer felt that parent having custody was in their best interests except "in special cases, e.g. where the husband consents and the wife's parents undertake to look after the children."
Clearly the meaning of the best interests of the child, which my MP friend reminded me had been around a long time, has changed dramatically over the years. Changing it once again therefore seems quite an open question, with a possible flaw being that it is so open to interpretation, or redefinition. I oppose BIC on the grounds that it denies the court the freedom to assess whether a good dedicated parent deserves to be excluded from their child's life without taking their interests into consideration (you'll remember Lord Justice Bingham's pronouncement on our "Children's Act 1989" to that effect).
Remember Elsje Bonthuy's comment or quotation she uses in her article "The use of BIC in the Soth African Constitution" - Mnookin said "Deciding what is in the best interests of the child is no lesser question than the meaning of life!"
Maybe therefore, although we may think we are discussing family law etc. what we are really considering or should be considering is such fundamental questions as these "ideological" questions or things that can only be answered by someone using some ideological basis.
"Equal parenting" implies doesn't it, that those parents who have "given" more to their child, by having them in their custody for a longer period than a non-custodial parent, has more right to a continuing relationship with them. This is something I've found feminist commentators who are against equal parenting arguing the father hadn't taken the time or equal time out from his job to spend with his child before the split up, so why should he expect more time now? Ignoring the fact that a man facing a totally different home set up or loss of home life might genuinely wish to re-assess his priorities in life (perhaps to make up to his child in some way for the split up of their parents).
We will be a long time discussing the meaning of life won't we, given our history in previous discussions. At the end of all this we are at least beyond the jurisdiction of any new laws enacted, so far as our own personal lives are concerned (or almost so in your family perhaps). So we can be commentators or advisers for those facing divorce/family laws in the future. Do we care all that much what happens to people in the future - I ask that rhetorically though because I think we do both care about injustice to anyone?
In the UK there has been an absolutely tragic case of a mother falsely accused of harming her own children (two suffering cot death in their first year of life, she gave birth to a third son whilst awaiting trial, and that child was raised in foster care until their mother was released from jail, when the injustice was uncovered - evidence of infections being kept from the defence lawyers). The mother has recently died (her name was Sally Clark, if you've heard of her over there, and she came from a town where I used to live when I was married - Wilmslow). The poor practise of some professionals charged with investigating the deaths or commenting on them has created a huge scandal, with all the usual calls for this "never being allowed to happen again" - as though human fallibility, such as that shown by the professionals could ever be outlawed. It has highlighted the over emphasis or regard given to expert opinion in court cases however, and their presentation skills or other advantages swaying the courts.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that the overwhelming feeling of sympathy for this dead mother is being shown in all our press and comments seen on most forums I use. Rational justification for the authorities trying to establish why those children died seem submerged by all this controversy. Did they die because no one was able to assist the parents or find out what, if anything could have been done wrong that allowed the infection to establish itself (found in at least one of the babies deaths)? Everyone seemed to be so intent on establishing blame for their deaths they couldn't appear to assess what else could have gone wrong.
One last thought for you - Sir Bernard Lovell, a famous scientist and astronomer, who was in charge of the Jodrell Bank radio telescope for many years (my grandfather was in a party shown around the telescope by the great man in the 1960's - two great men you could say together), anyway, I read a book he wrote a few years ago about the "big bang" theory and all these kind of things.
At the end of the book he asks a question about the future of mnakind. One possible answer to what our future might be he suggested, is that we would as a species descend collectively into decadence.
Maybe therefore, our question as to the meaning of life should include an assessment of whether what we propose to change brings forward mankinds decline into decadence or delays that process if it is indeed inevitable.
Some really big questions for you there!!!!!!
All the best, Graham
P.S. I read Sir Bernard's book at the house of a man who counted Sir Bernard's daughter as a former girlfriend or who once went out with her as a young man anyway - just one of those strange little facts for you (not so interesting if you've never heard of him though).