Joint Custody and Shared Parenting Statutes
Source: state legislatures (last updated, 29 Jan 2005)
Recognizing the benefits of joint custody and shared parenting, many states have adopted laws to encourage the involvement of both parents. These laws most often take the form of language promoting "frequent and continuing contact" with both parents, in contrast with the more traditional schedule of alternateing weekends with the noncustodial parent. This page provides highlights of laws involving shared parenting as it exists in the different states.
Statutory language or case law
AK, IA, KS, OK, TX, WI
substantially equal shared physical custody; maximize time with both parents, or similar language - 6
AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL, ID, IL, LA, ME, MO, MT, NM, OH, OR, PA, VA, WV
"frequent and continuing contact" or similar language - 20
GA, KY
case law - 2
MA, MN, NH
joint legal preference only - 3
CT, MI, MS, NV, TN, VT, WA
joint custody presumed where both parents agree - 7
HI, IN, MD NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, RI, SC, SD, UT, WY
no statutory language promoting shared parenting - 13
ALABAMA Section 30-3-150State policy.Joint Custody.—It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. Joint custody does not necessarily mean equal physical custody. (Acts 1996, No. 96-520, p. 666, §1.)
ALASKA AS 25.20.070Unless it is shown to be detrimental to the welfare of the child, the child shall have, to the greatest degree practical, equal access to both parents during the time that the court considers an award of custody under AS 25.20.060 - 25.20.130.See also: Alaska shared custody law
AS 25.24.150(a) In an action for divorce or for legal separation or for placement of a child when one or both parents have died, the court may, if it has jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300 - 25.30.320, and is an appropriate forum under AS 25.30.350 and 25.30.360, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of a child of the marriage, make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with the minor child that may seem necessary or proper, including an order that provides for visitation by a grandparent or other person if that is in the best interests of the child.
ARIZONA
Arizona statutes Title 25, Chapter 4, 25-403
A. The court shall determine custody, either originally or on petition for modification, in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including: 1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody.2. The wishes of the child as to the custodian. 3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent or parents, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.4. The child's adjustment to home, school and community. 5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.6. Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other parent. 7. Whether one parent, both parents or neither parent has provided primary care of the child.8. The nature and extent of coercion or duress used by a parent in obtaining an agreement regarding custody. 9. Whether a parent has complied with chapter 3, article 5 of this title.10. Whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect under section 13-2907.02.
ARKANSAS Title 9, § 9-13-101. Award of custody. (a) In an action for divorce, the award of custody of the children of the marriage shall be made without regard to the sex of the parent, but solely in accordance with the welfare and best interests of the children. (b)(1) (A) (i) When in the best interests of a child, custody shall be awarded in such a way so as to assure the frequent and continuing contact of the child with both parents. (2) To this effect, in making an order for custody to either parent, the court may consider, among other facts, which parent is more likely to allow the child or children frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent.
CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE SECTION 3020-3032(b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state to assure that children have frequent andcontinuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and toencourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy, except where the contactwould not be in the best interest of the child, as provided in Section 3011.
COLORADO SECTION 10. 1410124, Colorado Revised Statutes: 14-10-124. Best interests of child. (1) Legislative declaration. The general assembly finds and declares that it is in the best interest of all parties to encourage frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children of the marriage after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. In order to effectuate this goal, the general assembly urges parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing and to encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children and the parents.
CONNECTICUT presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree
46b-56a joint custody.
DELAWARE Title 13, Chapter 7§ 728. Residence; visitation; sanctions. (a) The Court shall determine, whether the parents have joint legal custody of the child or one of them has sole legal custody of the child, with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, consistent with the child's best interests and maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D.C. Code 16-911. Alimony pendente lite; suit money; enforcement; custody of children. (a)(5) and 16-914. Retention of jurisdiction as to alimony and custody of children. (a)(2) Unless the court determines that it is not in the best interest of the child, the court may issue an order that provides for frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor child or children and for the sharing of responsibilities of child- rearing and encouraging the love, affection, and contact between the minor child or children and the parents regardless of marital status.
FLORIDA 61.13 Custody and support of children; visitation rights; power of court in making orders. (b)1. The court shall determine all matters relating to custody of each minor child of the parties in accordance with the best interests of the child and in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. It is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents separate or the marriage of the parties is dissolved and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities, and joys, of childrearing. After considering all relevant facts, the father of the child shall be given the same consideration as the mother in determining the primary residence of a child irrespective of the age or sex of the child.
GEORGIA
Case Law: Court of Appeals of Georgia, Case No. A93A0698, 7/2/93 IN the INTEREST of A.R.B., a child
In a unanimous opinion, presiding Judge Dorothy T. Beasley stated: "Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose wellbeing is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce."
The A.R.B. case was subsequently heard by the Supreme Court of Georgia, which upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that, according to public policy of Georgia, joint custody was in the best interests of children when both parents are fit.
HAWAII no statutory language promoting shared parenting571-46.1 – joint custody Upon the application of either parents, joint custody may be awarded in the discretion of the court.
IDAHO
32-717B. (1) The court may award either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or bothas between the parents or parties as the court determines is for the bestinterests of the minor child or children. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), of this section, absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children. (5) There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.
ILLINOIS 750 ILCS 5/602(c) Unless the court finds the occurrence of ongoing abuse as defined in Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, the court shall presume that the maximum involvement and cooperation of both parents regarding the physical, mental, moral, and emotional well‑being of their child is in the best interest of the child.
INDIANA no statutory language promoting shared parentingAnnotated Indiana Code; Title 31, Article 15, Chapters 17-2-8, 17-2-8.5, and 17-2-15Joint custody may be awarded if it is in the best interest of the child.
IOWA 598.41 Custody of children. 1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent. 2. b. If the court does not grant joint custody under this subsection, the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to the factors in subsection 3, that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.
KANSAS Chapter 60.--PROCEDURE, CIVIL Article 16 - 60-1610 DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE (4) Types of custodial arrangements. Subject to the provisions of this article, the court may make any order relating to custodial arrangements which is in the best interests of the child. The order shall include, but not be limited to, one of the following, in the order of preference: (A) Joint custody. The court may place the custody of a child with both parties on a shared or joint-custody basis. In that event, the parties shall have equal rights to make decisions in the best interests of the child under their custody. When a child is placed in the joint custody of the child's parents, the court may further determine that the residency of the child shall be divided either in an equal manner with regard to time of residency or on the basis of a primary residency arrangement for the child. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit a plan for implementation of a joint custody order upon finding that both parents are suitable parents or the parents, acting individually or in concert, may submit a custody implementation plan to the court prior to issuance of a custody decree. If the court does not order joint custody, it shall include in the record the specific findings of fact upon which the order for custody other than joint custody is based.
KENTUCKY
Case Law: Chalupa v. Chalupa, Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 90-CA-001145-MR; (May 1, 1992).Judge Schroder, writing for the majority:A divorce from a spouse is not a divorce from their children, nor should custody decisions be used as a punishment. Joint custody can benefit the children, the divorced parents, and society in general by having both parents involved in the children's upbringing.... The difficult and delicate nature of deciding what is in the best interest of the child leads this Court to interpret the child's best interest as requiring a trial court to consider joint custody first, before the more traumatic sole custody. In finding a preference for joint custody is in the best interest of the child, even in a bitter divorce, the court is encouraging the parents to cooperate with each other and to stay on their best behavior. Joint custody can be modified if a party is acting in bad faith or is uncooperative. The trial court at amy time can review joint custody and if a party is being unreasonable, modify the custody to sole custody in favor of the reasonable parent. Surely, with the stakes so high, there would be more cooperation which leads to the child's best interest, the parents' best interest, fewer court appearances and judicial economy. Starting out with sole custody would deprive one parent of the vital input.

LOUISIANA
Art. 132. Award of custody to parents
If the parents agree who is to have custody, the court shall award custody in accordance with their agreement unless the best interest of the child requires a different award.
In the absence of agreement, or if the agreement is not in the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to the parents jointly; however, if custody in one parent is shown by clear and convincing evidence to serve the best interest of the child, the court shall award custody to that parent.
Acts 1992, No. 782, §1; Acts 1993, No. 261, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.
MAINE Title 19-A 1653. Parental rights and responsibilitiesC. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that it is in the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy. (1) Allocated parental rights and responsibilities, shared parental rights and responsibilities or sole parental rights and responsibilities, according to the best interest of the child as provided in subsection 3. An award of shared parental rights and responsibilities may include either an allocation of the child's primary residential care to one parent and rights of parent-child contact to the other parent, or a sharing of the child's primary residential care by both parents. If either or both parents request an award of shared primary residential care and the court does not award shared primary residential care of the child, the court shall state in its decision the reasons why shared primary residential care is not in the best interest of the child.
MARYLAND no statutory language promoting shared parenting.
MASSACHUSETTS ALM GL ch. 208, 31 (2004)A presumption for shared legal custody at temporary hearing; at permanent hearing, shared parenting an option if one parent requests it. In making an order or judgement relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine their custody. When considering the happiness and welfare of the child, the court shall consider whether or not the child's present or past living conditions adversely affect his physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
MICHIGAN MCL 722.26a - presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
MINNESOTA Minn. Stat. 518.17 (2003) presumption in favor of joint legal custody Joint Legal or Physical Custody Guidelines. In addition to the factors listed above, where either joint legal custody or joint physical custody is contemplated or sought, the court shall consider the following relevant factors: 1. The ability of parents to cooperate in the rearing of their children; 2. Methods for resolving disputes regarding any major decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents' willingness to use those methods; 3. Whether it would be detrimental to the child if one parent were to have sole authority over the child's upbringing; and 4. Whether domestic abuse has occurred between the parties.The court shall use a refutable presumption that upon request of either or both parties, joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child. However, the court shall use a refutable presumption that joint legal or physical custody is not in the best interests of the child if domestic abuse has occurred between the parents.
MISSISIPPI presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree. Title 93, Chapter 5
93-5-24. Types of custody awarded by court; joint custody; access to information pertaining to child by noncustodial parent.
(1)Custody may be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child:
(a)Physical and legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections 2 through 7.
(b) Physical custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections 2 through 7 and legal custody to either parent.
(c) Legal custody to both parents jointly pursuant to subsections 2 through 7 and physical custody to either parent.
(d) Physical and legal custody to either parent.
MISSOURI Chapter 452 Dissolution of Marriage, Divorce, Alimony and Separate Maintenance Section 452.375
4. The general assembly finds and declares that it is the public policy of this state that frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage is in the best interest of the child, except for cases where the court specifically finds that such contact is not in the best interest of the child, and that it is the public policy of this state to encourage parents to participate in decisions affecting the health, education and welfare of their children, and to resolve disputes involving their children amicably through alternative dispute resolution. In order to effectuate these policies, the court shall determine the custody arrangement which will best assure both parents participate in such decisions and have frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with their children so long as it is in the best interests of the child.5. Prior to awarding the appropriate custody arrangement in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider each of the following as follows: (1) Joint physical and joint legal custody to both parents, which shall not be denied solely for the reason that one parent opposes a joint physical and joint legal custody award. The residence of one of the parents shall be designated as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes;(2) Joint physical custody with one party granted sole legal custody. The residence of one of the parents shall be designated as the address of the child for mailing and educational purposes; (3) Joint legal custody with one party granted sole physical custody;(4) Sole custody to either parent; or (5) Third-party custody or visitation.
MONTANA 40-4-212. Best interest of child. (1) The court shall determine the parenting plan in accordance with the best interest of the child. The court shall consider all relevant parenting factors, which may include but are not limited to: ...(l) whether the child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents, which is considered to be in the child's best interests unless the court determines, after a hearing, that contact with a parent would be detrimental to the child's best interests.
NEBRASKA no statutory language promoting shared parenting42-364Dissolution or legal separation; decree; parenting plan; children; custody determination; rights of parents; childsupport; termination of parental rights; court; duties; modification proceedings.
NEW JERSEY no statutory language promoting shared parentingStatutes Annotated; Title 2A, Chapter 34-23Sole or joint custody may be awarded based on the following factors: (1) the physical, emotional, mental, religious, and social needs of the child; and (2) the preference of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity.BACK TO TOP
NEVADA presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree. NRS 125.490 Joint custody. 1. There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody would be in the best interest of a minor child if the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.2. The court may award joint legal custody without awarding joint physical custody in a case where the parents have agreed to joint legal custody.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RSA 458:17 presumption in favor of joint legal custody.UPDATE: On December 1, 2004, the New Hampshire State Commission to Study Child Support and Related Child Custody Issues issued a report concluding that "there should be a rebuttable presumption for the courts to initially consider both parents equal in their parenting abilities and start the custody determination with a 50/50 parenting arrangement." and "it is important for the courts to understand that such a rebuttable presumption can work in the children's best interest by reducing animosity and litigiousness between parents, providing equality in parenting roles and responsibilities and allowing children to have the benefit of a significant relationship with both parents."
NEW MEXICO Custody: §§ 40-4-9, 40-4-9.1A. There shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interestes of a child in an initial custody determination. ...(4) whether the child can best maintain and strengthen a relationship with both parents through predictable, frequent contact and whether the child's development will profit from such infolvement and influence from both parents;
NEW YORK no statutory language promoting shared parentingNew York Consolidated Laws, Chapter 14
NORTH CAROLINA no statutory language promoting shared parenting§ 50-13.2. (a) An order for custody of a minor child entered pursuant to this section shall award the custody of such child to such person, agency, organization or institution as will best promote the interest and welfare of the child. In making the determination, the court shall consider all relevant factors including acts of domestic violence between the parties, the safety of the child, and the safety of either party from domestic violence by the other party and shall make findings accordingly. An order for custody must include findings of fact which support the determination of what is in the best interest of the child. Between the mother and father, whether natural or adoptive, no presumption shall apply as to who will better promote the interest and welfare of the child. Joint custody to the parents shall be considered upon the request of either parent.
NORTH DAKOTA no statutory language promoting shared parentingCode; Chapter 14-05
OHIOORC Ann. 3109.04 (2004) (c) Whenever possible, the court shall require that a shared parenting plan approved under division (D)(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section ensure the opportunity for both parents to have frequent and continuing contact with the child, unless frequent and continuing contact with any parent would not be in the best interest of the child.
OKLAHOMA Statutes as Section 110.1 of Title 43, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows: It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. To effectuate this policy, if requested by a parent, the court shall provide substantially equal access to the minor children to both parents at a temporary order hearing, unless the court finds that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child. The burden of proof that such shared parenting would be detrimental to such child shall be upon the parent requesting sole custody.
OREGON 107.105 Provisions of decree. (1) Whenever the court grants a decree of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, it has power further to decree as follows: (a) For the future care and custody, by one party or jointly, of all minor children of the parties born, adopted or conceived during the marriage, and for minor children born to the parties prior to the marriage, as the court may deem just and proper pursuant to ORS 107.137. The court may hold a hearing to decide the custody issue prior to any other issues. When appropriate, the court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children. (b) For parenting time rights of the parent not having custody of such children, and for visitation rights of grandparents pursuant to a petition filed under ORS 109.121. When a parenting plan has been developed as required by ORS 107.102, the court shall review the parenting plan and, if approved, incorporate the parenting plan into the court's final order. When incorporated into a final order, the parenting plan is determinative of parenting time rights. If the parents have been unable to develop a parenting plan or if either of the parents requests the court to develop a detailed parenting plan, the court shall develop the parenting plan in the best interest of the child, ensuring the noncustodial parent sufficient access to the child to provide for appropriate quality parenting time and assuring the safety of the parties, if implicated. The court may deny parenting time to the noncustodial parent under this subsection only if the court finds that parenting time would endanger the health or safety of the child. The court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage, where practicable, joint responsibility for the welfare of such children and extensive contact between the minor children of the divided marriage and the parties.
PENNSYLVANIA Consolidated Statutes Annotated, Title 23, Sections 5302, 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5306].5301. The General Assembly declares that it is the public policy of this Commonwealth, when in the best interest of the child, to assure a reasonable and continuing contact of the child with both parents after a separation or dissolution of the marriage and the sharing of the rights and responsibilities of child rearing by both parents and continuing contact of the child or children with grandparents when a parent is deceased, divorced or separated.
§ 5303. Award of custody, partial custody or visitation. (a) General rule.--In making an order for custody, partial custody or visitation to either parent, the court shall consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to encourage, permit and allow frequent and continuing contact and physical access between the noncustodial parent and the child.
RHODE ISLAND no statutory language promoting shared parentingTitle 15, Chapter 15-5-16
SOUTH CAROLINA no statutory language promoting shared parentingSouth Carolina Code; Chapter 3, Sections 20-3-160, 20-7-100 and 20-7-1520In awarding child custody, the factors for consideration are as follows: (1) the circumstances of the spouses; (2) the nature of the case; (3) the religious faith of the parents and child; (4) the welfare of the child; and (5) the best spiritual and other interests of the child. The parents both have equal rights regarding any award of custody of children.
SOUTH DAKOTA
no statutory language promoting shared parentingTitle 25, Chapters 25-4-45.Sole or joint child custody is to be awarded based on the discretion of the court and the best interests of the child. TENNESSEE presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree36-6-101. Decree for custody and support of child(2) Except as provided in the following sentence, neither a preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody or sole custody is established, but the court shall have the widest discretion to order a custody arrangement that is in the best interest of the child. Unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of a minor child where the parents have agreed to joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child. For the purpose of assisting the court in making a determination whether an award of joint custody is appropriate, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted. The burden of proof necessary to modify an order of joint custody at a subsequent proceeding shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
TEXAS Texas law provides a minimum of 42% time with the non-custodial parent, if the non-custodial parent chooses to exercise the option in Section 153.317. Texas law is complex, and according to the National Fathers Resource Center , "Many dads don't know about this, and their attorneys don't tell them, so they fail to make the election, which means that they will be stuck with 'standard possession' rather than what we commonly refer to as expanded standard possession." By exercising other parts of the Texas statutes, it is often possible to extend the time allocation to roughly 50%. CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 153.001. Public Policy."(a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;" SUBCHAPTER C. PARENT APPOINTED AS SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR Sec. 153.131. Presumption That Parent to be Appointed Managing Conservator. "(b) It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child."
UTAH no statutory language promoting shared parenting30-3-10.2. (1) The court may order joint legal custody or joint physical custody or both if the parents have filed a parenting plan in accordance with Section 30-3-10.8 and it determines that joint legal custody or joint physical custody or both is in the best interest of the child.
VERMONT presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree.
VIRGINIA § 20-124.2. Court-ordered custody and visitation arrangements.B. In determining custody, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child. The court shall assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents, when appropriate, and encourage parents to share in the responsibilities of rearing their children. As between the parents, there shall be no presumption or inference of law in favor of either. The court shall give due regard to the primacy of the parent-child relationship but may upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child would be served thereby award custody or visitation to any other person with a legitimate interest. The court may award joint custody or sole custody.
WASHINGTON presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree. 26.09 RCW(1) There shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of minor children unless: (a) The parents have agreed to an award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent; or (b) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children. (2) A parent alleging that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children shall have the burden of establishing the allegation.
WEST VIRGINIA Chapter 48, Article 2"The child's best interests are defined as: stability; planning and agreement about custodial arrangements and upbringing; continuing and meaningful contact between the child and each parent; assuring that the child is in a healthful and secure environment; and expeditious decision making process regarding arrangements for the child's care and control." "If each of the child's legal parents has been exercising a reasonable share of parenting functions for the child, the court shall presume that an allocation of decision-making responsibility to both parents jointly is in the child's best interests."
WISCONSIN presumption in favor of joint custody if both parents agree. <>767.24 (2) (am) "The court shall presume that joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child." 767.24 (4) (a) "The court shall set a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent, taking into account geographic separation and accommodations for different households".
WYOMING no statutory language promoting shared parenting20‑2‑201.(a) In granting a divorce, separation or annulment of a marriage or upon the establishment of paternity pursuant to W.S. 14‑2‑401 through 14‑2‑907, the court may make by decree or order any disposition of the children that appears most expedient and in the best interests of the children.