Replace "Best Interest of the Child" Standard with "50/50 Shared Parenting"

Liberty
,
1

(Category: SOCIAL POLICY)

Proposal Description:
Replace “Best Interest of the Child” Standard with “50/50 Shared Parenting”

This policy proposal seeks to replace the existing “Best Interest of the Child” standard for determining child custody arrangements with a presumption of “50/50 Shared Parenting.” Under this proposal, child custody rights will automatically guarantee a 50/50 shared parenting allocation. This will not operate as a “presumption” to be overcom, but a guarantee.

Exceptions will include a clear and present danger to the child’s physical safety; and if one spouse obtains a UNILATERAL no-fault divorce without the consent of the other spouse.

Shared Parenting Framework:
The policy establishes a default framework of 50/50 shared parenting as the ideal custody arrangement, recognizing the importance of both parents in a child’s life and encouraging equal involvement in caregiving and decision-making.

Unilateral No-Fault Divorce:
Parents filing for unilateral no-fault divorce will not be granted custody rights. This aims to promote accountability and cooperation between parents during divorce proceedings.

Fault-Based Divorce:
In cases where divorce is initiated due to misconduct by one parent, 50/50 shared parenting will be guaranteed.

Mutual No-Fault Divorce:
Parents who mutually agree to a no-fault divorce will be guaranteed a 50/50 shared parenting allocation.

Rationale:

  • The shift to a 50/50 shared parenting standard emphasizes the belief that children benefit most from meaningful relationships with both parents. This approach seeks to minimize conflict and promote cooperative parenting by establishing a clear and equitable custody structure.

Implementation:
Family courts and legal practitioners will receive training on the new framework to ensure consistent application. Resources and guidelines will be developed to support parents in creating 50/50 shared parenting plans that work for their individual family dynamics.

Transition Period: A transition period will be implemented, allowing families currently under existing custody arrangements to adapt to the new framework while ensuring that any existing agreements are respected during the changeover.

This policy proposal aims to establish a fair and equitable approach to child custody that prioritizes the involvement of both parents in a child’s life, reduces contention in divorce proceedings, and ultimately supports the well-being of children.

2

I disagree depending on the Fault !
Any divorce filed after a verdict of guilty for domestic abuse, sex crimes or other violent crime, the non criminal parent should get 100% custody. Shared is acceptable for nonviolent convictions or adultery.

1 Like
3

This would mean the child is being used as a pawn to benefit one spouse for the fault of the other. All humans make mistakes and are at fault to varying degrees. The purpose of fault-based divorce is to discourage certain social harms that undermine the institution of marriage. It should not be a mechanism of depriving one child from their parents.

Besides, with our current system the way it is, you can’t get a fault-based divorce. In most states, there is not even a mutual consent no-fault divorce. The vast majority of divorces are unilateral no-fault, and state law supports it

4

I agree America should never have eliminated for cause as a divorce option.

The worst part was passing. The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, a federal-state program under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, provides incentive payments to states for child support collections:

  • Incentive payments

States receive a minimum of 6% of their AFDC and nonAFDC collections, and up to 10% based on cost-effectiveness. The total amount of nonAFDC incentives is capped at 115% of the AFDC incentive.

  • Distribution

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) distributes an estimated annual incentive payment amount to the state at the beginning of each fiscal year. The state then distributes the incentive payments to child support enforcement agencies (CSEAs) each month.

  • Reinvestment

States must reinvest incentive payments for IV-D purposes. States can use incentive funds for non-IV-D activities, such as education and job programs, mediation, and couples counseling, but the Commissioner of OCSE can revoke approval at any time.

  • Monitoring

Federal auditors monitor state compliance with the reinvestment requirement. States that don’t comply may have incentive amounts disallowed.

The CSE program’s primary purpose is to reduce public expenditures for cash assistance recipients by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents.

This almost guaranteed mother’s custody and broke men making child support payments by financially incentivizing family courts to get the most money out of child support as possible.