The Kansas Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would force divorcing parents to share equal time with their children.
The chamber voted 39-1 to approve legislation requiring courts to grant equal time if the divorcing parents couldn’t agree on a temporary parenting plan.
The legislation establishes a presumption that it’s in the children’s best interests for “fit, willing and able” parents to have temporary joint legal custody and share in equal parenting time.
The bill was amended to establish a presumption that it would not be in the best interests of a child for the parents to share custody if there was documentation or information indicating domestic abuse.
“We’re making a statement saying…we want these parents to be involved in their child’s life even through the toughest times when the two parents are trying to split up,” said Republican state Sen. Rob Olson.
There are now 19 states that have variations of the co-parenting law on the books with 20 others considering these types of laws, said Republican Sen. Rick Wilborn, the lead sponsor of the legislation.
“It is consistent with the traditional values of many people that requested this bill,” Wilborn said.
Some reserved harsh judgment of the legislation.
Prairie Village family lawyer Ron Nelson has been an ardent opponent of the equal parenting time legislation.
Nelson said in an email that the section in the bill addressing domestic abuse would “invite an all-out war between parents” to prove that the other is abusive regardless of the truth.
The bill, he said, “would encourage parents to dig up, invent, or allege that a parent who should not otherwise have ‘equal time’ because of circumstances is an abusive person.”
The bill would “invite long trials, angry parents, encourage dysfunction, and increase litigation over children many fold,” he said.
Democratic state Sen. Vic Miller voted for the bill because of the statement it made about equal rights for moms and dads.
However, Miller warned that the bill might not have as big of an impact as some supporters believe.
Miller said there is no hearing when a party goes to the courthouse, files a divorce and gets a temporary order signed.
The other side – sometimes unware that a divorce was filed – doesn’t get to rebut whether the filing is accurate or not.
Miller predicted that most judges will sign temporary orders that will not give equal parenting time based on the limited facts contained in the first court filing.
Miller noted that the bill only applies to the temporary order and not the permanent order the judge ultimately signs.
Democratic Sen. David Haley said the bill allows judges to balance the parenting equation. He said the bill gives judges the opportunity to go beyond the presumption that “mother knows best.”
“This bill, when passed, will enable the court to review, not with the automatic discrimination that’s now employed, but to imagine for a moment that all things being equal, both parents should have an equal opportunity to parent.”
Nelson pointed to a 2018 Judicial Council report that recommended against the equal-time legislation
The council – made up of judges, lawyers and lawmakers – expressed concern that the legislation established a new legal standard of presumption in deciding whether divorcing parents should be given equal time with their children.
The committee unanimously agreed that the current law gives courts the most latitude to consider the facts of each case.
But Nelson said the Judicial Council’s recommendation only addressed final parenting orders.
“At the temporary order stage, courts don’t have the luxury of good information,” he said.
“Most often at this time, temporary orders are obtained when there is conflict between the parents about the divorce itself, moving out of the house, keeping their relationship going, and other relationship and psychological dynamics.
“It is not the time when either party has good information to present to the court.”
