Thomas James, Cokato Minnesota attorney at the Law Office of Tom James, is a recipient of the 2025 Ned Holstein Shared Parenting Research Award sponsored by the National Parents Organization. The award is given to people who have conducted groundbreaking research on shared parenting. The organization recognized Mr. James for his meticulously researched law review article, Child Custody Presumptions: From Fault and Gender to Equal Time, which is published in the Georgia State University Law Review, vol. 42 (2026).
From the article abstract:
For most of history, judges have applied fault- and sex-based presumptions to decide the kinds of custody arrangements that are in children’s best interests. Now that those have been eliminated, courts have no clear guidance for deciding the custody of children other than a vague directive to do what is “best.” Legislatures have enacted nonexclusive lists of suggested factors to consider, but these statutes are frequently as vaguely worded as the “best interest” directive. Because precatory words inserted into statutes with the intention of guiding a judge’s discretion are not binding, they do not provide a basis for appellate review. The result is that there is ample room for the operation of faulty assumptions and biases, potentially to the detriment of children. A growing body of evidence suggests that children benefit more from equal-time arrangements than they do from other kinds of custodial arrangements. The experiences of jurisdictions that have enacted equal-parenting-time presumptions confirm the benefits of a presumption of equal parenting time. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that the presumption is rebuttable and that it is crafted to be both feasible and maximally beneficial to children. This Article points the way.
For most of history, judges have applied fault- and sex-based presumptions to decide the kinds of custody arrangements that are in children’s best interests. Now that those have been eliminated, courts have no clear guidance for deciding the custody of children other than a vague directive to do what is “best.” Legislatures have enacted nonexclusive lists of suggested factors to consider, but these statutes are frequently as vaguely worded as the “best interest” directive. Because precatory words inserted into statutes with the intention of guiding a judge’s discretion are not binding, they do not provide a basis for appellate review. The result is that there is ample room for the operation of faulty assumptions and biases, potentially to the detriment of children. A growing body of evidence suggests that children benefit more from equal-time arrangements than they do from other kinds of custodial arrangements. The experiences of jurisdictions that have enacted equal-parenting-time presumptions confirm the benefits of a presumption of equal parenting time. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that the presumption is rebuttable and that it is crafted to be both feasible and maximally beneficial to children. This Article points the way.
The announcement was made by Ned Holstein on Shared Parenting Day, April 26, 2026. Watch the video here.
Comments
Post a Comment