our-blog-icon-top
NPO publishes blog articles to inform and to stimulate conversation about issues of importance to NPO's mission.  All blog articles express the opinions of the authors as individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Parents Organization, its Board of Directors, or its executives.  



On December 17, Stephen Meehan (NPO PA Chair) and NPO Executive Director Ginger Gentile gave us Pennsylvania updates on the sub-committee hearing that had the room packed with supporters. Watch the video and learn why the only real opposition is coming from lawyers who admit "we don't look at evidence in family court."

Find out how your state ranks on the NPO #SharedParenting report card (Pennsylvania got a D!!!) at www.sharedparenting.org

Want to join an affiliate or start one in your state and be part of the change? www.nationalparentsorganization.org

Text of the bill: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/billInfo/billInfo.cfm…

Proposed House Bill 1397 removes the definitions “primary physical custody” and “partial physical custody” and replaces them with “equal parenting time.” The proposed Bill creates a presumption that there will be equal parenting time, which is defined as, “as close as practicable to 50% of time spent with each parent, but in no case exceeding 60% of time spent with either parent.”

House Bill 1397 specifically states that “in any action regarding the custody of a child between the parents of the child there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that shared physical and legal custody and equal parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If a deviation from equal parenting time is warranted, the Court shall order a parenting time schedule that maximizes the time each parent has with a child, to the extent consistent with the child’s best interest.”

This means that in all custody cases, the Court is to presume that equal time with each parent is the way it should be. A parent who does not agree that a 50-50 custody arrangement is in the best interest of their children must prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden of proof. This is a dramatic change from current standards in which there is no presumption as to what the custody arrangement should be and decisions are made based solely on the sixteen factors.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn