Casting the Net Wider: How a Custody Relocation Lawyer Interprets the Rise of Joint Custody Presumptions
In recent months, two states—Oklahoma and North Dakota—have introduced legislative proposals that could reshape how child custody is determined in family courts. These bills, Oklahoma’s House Bill 3010 and North Dakota’s Senate Bill 2360, reflect a growing national conversation about fairness, parental rights, and the best interests of children in divorce and separation cases. Both pieces of legislation propose a significant shift: establishing a presumption of joint or equal custody as the starting point for custody decisions. While supporters hail these changes as a move toward equity, critics raise concerns about potential complications in complex cases. As these bills progress through their respective legislatures, they signal a broader trend that could influence family law across the United States.
In Oklahoma, Representative Kevin West introduced House Bill 3010 to address what some residents see as an uneven playing field in custody disputes. The bill, which has already cleared the House Judiciary Civil Committee with a 5-1 vote, is now awaiting consideration by the full House as of March 17, 2025. Under the proposed law, courts would begin with the assumption that both parents should share custody equally unless evidence demonstrates that such an arrangement would not serve the child’s best interests. This presumption of joint custody aims to ensure that neither parent is unfairly sidelined, a sentiment echoed by Oklahomans who have long felt the current system can favor one parent over the other without sufficient justification. If passed, Oklahoma would join states like Kentucky and Arkansas, which have already adopted similar frameworks.
Meanwhile, in North Dakota, Senator Keith Boehm’s Senate Bill 2360 pursues a parallel goal. The legislation, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 5-2 vote, proposes a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time. This means that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, courts would default to splitting custody evenly between parents. Now under review by the full Senate, the bill has ignited a lively debate. Advocates argue that it corrects systemic biases and ensures children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents. For many, it’s a matter of fairness—giving each parent an equal shot at raising their kids unless circumstances like neglect or abuse dictate otherwise.
The similarities between these two proposals are striking. Both Oklahoma and North Dakota are responding to a perceived need for reform in family law, driven by constituents who feel the traditional approach to custody too often leaves one parent at a disadvantage. By setting joint or equal custody as the baseline, these bills shift the burden of proof onto those who oppose such arrangements, requiring them to provide clear evidence to justify a deviation. This represents a departure from past practices, where courts often had broader discretion to award primary custody to one parent based on factors that critics say could be subjective or outdated.
However, the proposals are not without controversy. In Oklahoma, some legal experts caution that House Bill 3010 could complicate cases involving abuse or neglect. By starting with a joint custody presumption, courts might require more extensive evidence to rule against it, potentially delaying decisions in situations where a child’s safety is at stake. Similarly, in North Dakota, family law attorneys worry that Senate Bill 2360 could clog court dockets with additional litigation as parents challenge the presumption in contentious cases. Critics in both states argue that a one-size-fits-all approach risks oversimplifying the nuanced realities of family dynamics, where factors like parental fitness, domestic violence, or logistical challenges often come into play.
Supporters counter that these concerns are overstated. They point to states with existing joint custody laws, where courts have successfully balanced the presumption with the need to protect children. In their view, the bills empower judges to make equitable decisions while sending a clear message: both parents matter. For families in Oklahoma and North Dakota, the outcome of these legislative efforts could redefine their post-separation lives, offering a framework that prioritizes shared responsibility over winner-takes-all outcomes.
As House Bill 3010 and Senate Bill 2360 move forward, their progress will be closely watched—not just by parents and lawmakers in their respective states, but by advocates and policymakers nationwide. The push for equal custody presumptions reflects a broader cultural shift toward recognizing the value of both parents in a child’s upbringing. Whether these bills become law remains uncertain, but their introduction alone marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of family law. For now, Oklahoma and North Dakota stand at the forefront of a movement that could set a precedent for years to come, balancing fairness with the enduring priority of a child’s well-being.
