House rejects rebuttable-presumption joint custody bill after close debate

The South Dakota House considered Senate Bill 172, which would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of joint physical custody of a minor child in civil cases, and rejected it on a narrow vote after extended floor debate.

"The rebuttable presumption simply means that the starting point or default assumption is that both parents should share time with their children equally unless there's compelling evidence that this would not be in the best interest of a child," said Representative Joshua Mulder, sponsor on the House floor, urging passage and citing research that, he said, shows children often fare better with substantial time with both parents.

Opponents urged caution. Representative Mike Stevens, who spoke against calendaring and passage, said the state already uses a statutory standard focused on the best interest of the child and a legislatively codified list of factors. "This bill would add another step, would add another delay, would add another part to the process and literally would not change any of the decisions that were made by any of the trial courts," Stevens said. He warned the bill would increase hearings, mediation costs and time in litigation for families and their children.

Other speakers framed the bill as a child-centered reform or, alternately, as a misdirected parental-rights measure. Representative Baxter read testimony from a teenager who described limited time with a sibling under a prior custody order and urged lawmakers to prioritize frequent parental contact. Representative Rayfeld argued that the existing standard already places the child's best interest first and that changing it would improperly privilege parental claims.

The House voted on final passage after a motion to call the question. The result: Senate Bill 172 failed by one vote (ayes 35, nays 34, excused 1). A motion to reconsider was noted; sponsors may seek further floor action later in the session.