Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shared Parenting Presumption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Pearson introduces shared-custody presumption bill; debate highlights practical limits and proposed amendments
Summary
Senate file 117 would create a presumption of shared legal and physical custody in dissolution and paternity cases unless specified exceptions apply. Sponsors and colleagues debated distance, standards of proof and the difficulty of enumerating exceptions; committee deferred further testimony and scheduled continuation.
Senator Laura Pearson introduced Senate file 117 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, presenting a statute that would create a presumption in favor of shared custody (joint legal and joint physical custody) unless the parties agree otherwise or certain enumerated exceptions apply. Pearson said the bill seeks to place parents on an “even playing field” after separation and to promote ongoing parental involvement in children’s lives.
In outlining the proposal, Senator Pearson said a court “shall enter an order of shared custody unless” one of several conditions is met, including written agreement to a different arrangement, adjudicated domestic violence, abuse or neglect, the parties living a significant distance apart (language the sponsor later proposed removing), or a showing that a different arrangement is in the child’s best interests. The draft defined joint physical custody as children residing with each parent “for substantially equal amount of time each calendar year.” The sponsor proposed three friendly amendments: remove a 300-mile distance limit, lower the evidentiary standard from clear and convincing to a preponderance of the evidence for finding a different arrangement is needed, and add judicial consideration of a parent’s false or fraudulent allegations.
Colleagues raised practical concerns during debate. Senator Crago questioned how a statutory 50/50 physical split would work when parents live far apart or when children are enrolled in school. Senator Crago and others noted the statute allows parties to set different arrangements by written agreement; several senators emphasized judges must retain discretion to adapt custody to practical realities. Senator Hicks described past complex cases where enumerated exceptions multiplied and suggested that exhaustive lists inevitably miss scenarios that later require legislative fixes.
Senator Pearson said attorneys had recommended lowering the evidentiary standard to preponderance and that the change would give judges flexibility in borderline cases. She told the committee the bill’s aim is to reduce custody-based conflict by encouraging parental cooperation and shared decision-making.
Committee members agreed more time for agency testimony and public comment would be useful. Chairman Olsen said the committee would continue consideration the next day at noon to receive additional agency and public testimony and to consider amendments. No committee vote occurred during this hearing.
Ending note: The sponsor will return with drafting clarifications; the committee scheduled continuation of SF 117 the following day to hear remaining testimony and consider possible amendments.
