In an article published on 2/24 about the divorce time-share bill, Rebecca Palmer discusses House Bill 1395, which, if passed, would fail to protect children. “The provision would create a presumption that a 50/50 time-sharing custodial schedule would be in the best interest of a minor child,” writes Rebecca. “Shared parental responsibility is the idea that both parents are equally involved in making decisions on behalf of their child. This provision can also endanger a child’s welfare in the event of an addicted, abusive, or absentee parent.”

Rebecca says that a blanket presumption to support a child’s best interest is misguided. “HB 1395 will be presented as part of legislation prohibiting the award of permanent alimony in future divorces and would also repeal court-ordered permanent alimony,” writes Rebecca. “The addition of the 50/50 custodial time-sharing provision seems like an afterthought, and this provision is more likely to drive families into court for an unnecessary extension of this already difficult, life-changing process for both the parent and child.”

To read the article about the divorce time-share bill in full, click here.

 

[DISPLAY_ULTIMATE_SOCIAL_ICONS]