Panel rejects presumptive 50/50 parenting-time bill after heated testimony from parents, advocates and lawyers

A proposal to create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal custody and equally shared parenting time are in the best interest of a child failed in the House Judiciary committee after prolonged debate and public testimony.

Sponsor Representative Parkinson said the bill establishes a starting presumption of equal parenting time — a rebuttable presumption that judges could set aside when evidence showed it was not in the child’s best interest. He argued that many children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents and that a declared starting point would normalize shared parenting.

Opponents included members of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Family Law committee and judges who told the committee the bill would improperly constrain judicial discretion and produce unintended consequences. George Spanos, chair of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Family Law Executive Committee, urged defeat, saying the bill “cuts the legs out of the best-interest calculation” and that experience in other states showed increases in orders of protection filings and other adverse outcomes.

Parents and activists spoke sharply on both sides. Supporters included fathers who said they were unjustly relegated to limited visitation and urged a starting point to preserve involvement. Critics, including child‑welfare practitioners and domestic‑violence advocates, warned the presumption could harm children in abusive situations and noted tools such as parental‑alienation diagnoses and reunification therapy could be misused. One witness described a personal case in which she said abuse allegations were discounted and her child was ordered into reunification therapy.

After extended questioning and floor debate in committee, the motion to advance House Bill 11-31 failed on a committee vote recorded as 3 ayes, 16 nos, and 2 present not voting.