{"id":"best-interests","title":"Best interests","fields":[{"key":"authority","label":"Authority"},{"key":"source_type","label":"Source framework"},{"key":"factors","label":"Factor structure"},{"key":"verb","label":"Operative language"},{"key":"catch_all","label":"Catch-all language"},{"key":"presumption","label":"Presumptions in the original survey"},{"key":"preference_age","label":"Child's voice / age rule"},{"key":"child_voice_note","label":"Child's voice qualification"}],"records":[{"jurisdiction_id":"US-AL","name":"Alabama","summary":"Case law framework; factor structure: 12 considerations (unnumbered). No numeric age. Devine considers a child's preference when the child has sufficient age and maturity. Section 30-3-152 separately adds joint-custody considerations.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686 (Ala. 1981); Ala. Code §§ 30-3-131, -152","catch_all":"yes","factors":"12 considerations (unnumbered)","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint custody if both parents request; DV rebuttable","source_type":"Case law","verb":"must"},"sources":[{"label":"Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686 (Ala. 1981), public opinion reproduction","url":"https://hallapproved.com/al/cases/supreme/1981/1729927/"},{"label":"Ala. Code §30-3-131","url":"https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama?section=30-3-131"},{"label":"Ala. Code §30-3-152","url":"https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama?section=30-3-152"},{"label":"Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686 (Ala. 1981): reporter-page scan","url":"https://static.case.law/so2d/398/case-pdfs/0686-01.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-AK","name":"Alaska","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 9.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c)","catch_all":"yes, (c)(9)","factors":"9","preference_age":"none","presumption":"DV rebuttable, (g)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150","url":"https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#25.24.150"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-AZ","name":"Arizona","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 11.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Domestic violence must be established by a preponderance of the evidence; corroborating exhibits or another person’s testimony are not required. Section 25-403.03(M) defines the covered conduct, including coercive control, and excludes justified defense of oneself or another under §§ 13-404 and 13-406. The victim need not establish a minimum severity or frequency to trigger the presumption.","The court may not characterize the violence as mutual or apply the presumption to both parents unless they lacked justification to a similar degree and inflicted similar injury. Otherwise, it applies only to the parent whose conduct and motivation were more serious (§ 25-403.03(D)(2)).","Before entering an order, the court must make the written findings required by subsection B concerning admitted evidence, rebuttal and precautions. Rebuttal requires consideration of every factor in subsection E, including treatment and rehabilitation evidence; a completion certificate alone is insufficient. The child’s absence, unawareness and preference for increased or continued contact are irrelevant to the presumption under subsection F.","Rebuttal does not automatically entitle a parent to an award. Subsection H requires safety precautions, and subsection I prohibits joint treatment, counseling or forensic assessment of the victim with the offending parent. Subsection A gives safety priority notwithstanding the general policy in § 25-103(B).","An unrebutted presumption continues in later modification proceedings (§ 25-403.03(J)). Under § 25-411(L), whether new evidence overcomes it is a preliminary question when deciding whether circumstances sufficiently changed to permit modification."],"title":"Domestic-violence presumption: scope and safeguards"},"fields":{"authority":"Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-403(A)","catch_all":"preamble","child_voice_note":"The wishes of a child of suitable age and maturity remain a factor under § 25-403(A)(4). Under § 25-403.03(F)(3), however, a preference to reinstate, maintain or increase contact with the parent who committed domestic violence is irrelevant to the domestic-violence presumption; this is not a general exclusion of the child’s wishes.","factors":"11","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Mandatory rebuttable domestic-violence presumption against legal decision-making and parenting time. The parent must rebut it by clear and convincing evidence for sole/joint decision-making or unsupervised time, and by a preponderance for supervised time (§ 25-403.03(C)–(G), (M)).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-403, 25-403.03","url":"https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00403.htm"},{"label":"A.R.S. § 25-403.03 — domestic violence framework","url":"https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00403-03.htm"},{"label":"2026 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 263 — operative June 22, 2026","url":"https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57Leg/2R/laws/0263.pdf"},{"label":"A.R.S. § 25-411 — modification, subsection L","url":"https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00411.htm"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-AR","name":"Arkansas","summary":"No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. A change in the law alone is not a material change in circumstances for custody modification.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"n/a","preference_age":"none","presumption":"In an original child-custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter, joint custody is rebuttably presumed to be in the child's best interest. Rebuttal routes are: clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the child's best interest; agreement on all custody issues; one party not requesting sole, primary, or joint custody; or a subsection (c) or (d) presumption established by the evidence. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv).","source_type":"No enumeration","verb":"may"},"sources":[{"label":"Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-9/subtitle-2/chapter-13/subchapter-1/section-9-13-101/"},{"label":"Ortiz v. Bagley, 2026 Ark. App. 161, CV-25-291, March 4, 2026","url":"https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelby-ortiz-v-johnathan-bagley-arkctapp-2026"},{"label":"Ark. Code §9-13-101 — labeled 2025 reproduction","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-9/subtitle-2/chapter-13/subchapter-1/section-9-13-101/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-CA","name":"California","summary":"Section 3011(a) has five numbered provisions, four substantive factors; § 3040.5 separately requires consideration of relevant, admissible human-trafficking evidence.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3011, 3040.5","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"5 (4 substantive) in § 3011(a); § 3040.5 separately requires consideration of relevant, admissible evidence that a parent caused human trafficking of the child or the other parent.","preference_age":"No minimum age for considering a sufficiently mature child’s wishes. At 14 or older, a child who wishes to address the court generally must be allowed to do so, subject to a best-interest finding stated on the record; younger children may also be heard (§ 3042(a), (c)–(d)).","presumption":"Domestic-violence presumption under Cal. Fam. Code § 3044 applies after a qualifying court finding that a parent perpetrated domestic violence within the preceding five years and is rebuttable. Rebuttal is child-specific; a finding in a separate proceeding involving a different child does not automatically bind another parent (In re Marriage of Jessica and Sammer Z. (2026), pp. 26–32).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3011, 3020, 3040, 3042, 3044","url":"https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3011"},{"label":"In re Marriage of Jessica and Sammer Z., D084336, slip opinion pp. 26–32 (published Sept. 8, 2026)","url":"https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D084336.PDF"},{"label":"Cal. Fam. Code § 3040.5 (2025 reproduction)","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-fam/division-8/part-2/chapter-2/section-3040-5/"},{"label":"Cal. Fam. Code § 3042 (2025 reproduction)","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-fam/division-8/part-2/chapter-2/section-3042/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-CO","name":"Colorado","summary":"Statutory framework; nine parenting-time considerations and a separate evidence and findings rule, plus three decision-making considerations.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Section 14-10-124(1.5)(a)–(b) directs allocation of parenting time and decision-making by the child’s best interests; it does not establish a presumption of equal parenting time or mutual decision-making. Section 14-10-124(3) prohibits presuming a person better able to serve the child’s best interests because of sex.","Under § 14-10-124(1.5)(c)(I), if the court determines by a preponderance that a party committed domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, or sexual assault resulting in the conception of a child, mutual decision-making over the objection of the other party or the child’s legal representative is not in the child’s best interests unless the court makes specific findings that it can occur without coercion, intimidation, retaliation, or risk of harm to the abused party or child. Subsection (c)(II) bars appointment of a parenting coordinator solely to accomplish mutual decision-making.","For the same findings, § 14-10-124(1.6)(a) requires safety conditions on parenting time and § 14-10-124(1.6)(c) requires consideration of whether to prohibit or restrict parenting time. HB 26-1309 repealed the former § 14-10-124(4), including its former sexual-assault-conception decision-making presumption, effective May 27, 2026. Separate Title 19 termination provisions may apply only on their respective conditions; this entry does not summarize those proceedings."],"title":"Parenting time, decision-making and safety"},"fields":{"authority":"Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-124(1.5), (1.6), (3)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"9 parenting-time considerations plus a separately numbered evidentiary and findings provision (§ 14-10-124(1.5)(a)(III.5)); 3 additional decision-making considerations (§ (1.5)(b)).","preference_age":"none","presumption":"No equal-time or mutual-decision presumption; safety rules apply","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Colorado Revised Statutes 2026, title 14, § 14-10-124","url":"https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-14.htm"},{"label":"HB 26-1309, 2026 Colorado session laws chapter 163","url":"https://leg.colorado.gov/laws/session-laws/HB26-1309/163/download"},{"label":"Colorado 2026 § 14-10-124 factor structure","url":"https://olls.info/crs/crs2026-title-14.htm"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-CT","name":"Connecticut","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 17.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56(c)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"17","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint custody presumed in best interests when parents agree, § 46b-56a(b)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"may"},"sources":[{"label":"Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56","url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_815j.htm#sec_46b-56"},{"label":"Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56a(b): joint custody upon parental agreement","url":"https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_815j.htm#sec_46b-56a"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-DE","name":"Delaware","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 8.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722(a)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"8","preference_age":"none","presumption":"DV rebuttable, § 705A","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §§ 705A, 722","url":"https://delcode.delaware.gov/title13/c007/index.html"},{"label":"13 Del. C. § 722: best interests","url":"https://delcode.delaware.gov/title13/c007/sc02/index.html#722"},{"label":"13 Del. C. § 705A: domestic violence presumptions","url":"https://delcode.delaware.gov/title13/c007A/sc01/index.html#705A"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-DC","name":"District of Columbia","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 17.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"D.C. Code § 16-914(a)(2)-(3)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"17","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint custody is rebuttably presumed to be in the child's best interest, except on the findings specified in § 16-914(a)(2); a contrary rebuttable presumption then applies. The statutory triggers are an intrafamily offense, child abuse, child neglect, or parental kidnapping, with the judicial findings and preponderance standard specified there.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"D.C. Code § 16-914","url":"https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-914"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-FL","name":"Florida","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 20.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)","catch_all":"yes, (3)(t)","factors":"20","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Equal time-sharing rebuttable, § 61.13(2)(c)1","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"must"},"sources":[{"label":"Fla. Stat. § 61.13 (2025)","url":"https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/61.13"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-GA","name":"Georgia","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 17.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Ga. Code Ann. § 19-9-3(a)(3)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"17","preference_age":"14 (presumptive selection, subject to best interests); 11–13 considered","presumption":"No presumption favoring either parent or any form of custody under (a)(1); age-14 selection is separately presumptive, subject to best interests, under (a)(5).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"may"},"sources":[{"label":"Ga. Code §19-9-3 — 2025 reproduction, scoped review","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-19/chapter-9/article-1/section-19-9-3/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-HI","name":"Hawaii","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 16. Factors (5) and (11) in § 571-46(b) are not considered when the court determines that a parent committed family violence. Section 571-46(a)(9) separately creates a rebuttable presumption against sole custody, joint legal custody or joint physical custody with the perpetrator.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-46(b)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"16","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Family-violence rebuttable, (a)(9)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-46","url":"https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol12_ch0501-0588/hrs0571/hrs_0571-0046.htm"},{"label":"HRS §571-46","url":"https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0571/HRS_0571-0046.htm"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-ID","name":"Idaho","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 7.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Idaho Code § 32-717(1)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"7","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint custody, § 32-717B(4); reversed for habitual DV, (5)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Idaho Code §§ 32-717, 32-717B","url":"https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title32/T32CH7/SECT32-717/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-IL","name":"Illinois","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 17 + 15.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Section 602.7(b) states that both parents are presumed fit and limits restrictions on parenting time as defined in § 600 and described in § 603.10, unless the court finds by a preponderance that a parent’s exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.","Section 602.5 governs significant decision-making and says that the Act does not require allocation of decision-making responsibilities to each parent. The two factor sets are distinct: § 602.7(b) lists 17 parenting-time factors; § 602.5(c) lists 15 decision-making factors, each including a catch-all."],"title":"Parenting-time presumption and scope"},"fields":{"authority":"750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/602.7(b); 5/602.5(c)","catch_all":"yes, (b)(17)","factors":"17 + 15","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Parenting time: both parents presumed fit; defined restrictions require serious endangerment","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/602.5, 5/602.7","url":"https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/075000050K602.7.htm"},{"label":"750 ILCS 5/602.5, significant decision-making","url":"https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/075000050K602.5.htm"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-IN","name":"Indiana","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 9.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"9","preference_age":"14 (more weight)","presumption":"Express anti-presumption","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8","url":"https://iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/31#31-17-2-8"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-IA","name":"Iowa","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 11, (3)(a)–(k). Subsection 3 of § 598.41 does not apply when the parents agree to joint custody under subsection 4.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Iowa Code § 598.41(3)","catch_all":"none — closed","factors":"11, (3)(a)–(k)","preference_age":"none","presumption":"If the court finds a history of domestic abuse, a rebuttable presumption against joint custody arises; an unrebutted finding outweighs the other subsection 3 factors in a custody determination under subsection 2.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Iowa Code § 598.41","url":"https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/598.41.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-KS","name":"Kansas","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 18.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3203(a)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"18","preference_age":"none","presumption":"An agreed parenting plan is presumed in the child’s best interests, subject to specific contrary findings (§ 23-3202). Neither parent has a vested custody or residency interest against the other, and no presumption favors the mother of an infant or young child (§ 23-3204). A conditional rebuttable presumption against custody or residency applies to a parent residing with a person subject to specified offender-registration requirements or convicted of specified child abuse (§ 23-3205). Joint, then sole legal custody are listed in an order of preference (§ 23-3206).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-3203","url":"https://www.ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch23/023_032_0003.html"},{"label":"K.S.A. 23-3205: conditional rebuttable presumption","url":"https://kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/023_000_0000_chapter/023_032_0000_article/023_032_0005_section/023_032_0005_k/"},{"label":"K.S.A. 23-3206: legal custody arrangements","url":"https://kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/023_000_0000_chapter/023_032_0000_article/023_032_0006_section/023_032_0006_k/"},{"label":"K.S.A. 23-3202: agreed parenting plan","url":"https://kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/023_000_0000_chapter/023_032_0000_article/023_032_0002_section/023_032_0002_k/"},{"label":"K.S.A. 23-3204: parent-versus-parent rule","url":"https://kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/023_000_0000_chapter/023_032_0000_article/023_032_0004_section/023_032_0004_k/"},{"label":"K.S.A. 23-3203 — 2026 Kansas Statutes","url":"https://kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/023_000_0000_chapter/023_032_0000_article/023_032_0003_section/023_032_0003_k/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-KY","name":"Kentucky","summary":"Statutory framework; 12 lettered factors after prior consideration and findings on specified allegations.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Effective July 15, 2026, § 403.270(3) requires prior consideration of specified allegations of domestic violence and abuse or an abused or neglected child, and written findings on their impact, if any, on the child. Subsection (4) lists twelve lettered paragraphs and all other relevant factors. Paragraph (h) requires a court finding of a malicious, intentionally false child-abuse allegation known to lack a factual basis; an allegation merely unproved is insufficient (§ 403.270(3)–(4); Act 92 § 3, pp. 4–5).","Under § 403.270(2), the presumption of joint custody and equally shared parenting time is rebuttable by a preponderance and subject to § 403.315. Section 403.315(1) covers specified initial and modification proceedings: when a domestic violence order is being or has been entered against a party by another party or on behalf of a child at issue, the equal-custody and equal-time presumption does not apply to that party.","Section 403.315(2) states a rebuttable presumption against joint custody and equal time upon a finding that a party committed two or more specified acts against another party. Subsection (3) restricts custody or unsupervised visitation after a finding of two or more specified acts against another party until the listed intervention, parenting, assessment and treatment requirements and supervised visitation are completed, with an evidentiary hearing before unsupervised visitation and a second or subsequent hearing before custody.","Subsections (2) and (3) of § 403.315 are new in 2026, and the enacted and compiled texts differ. 2026 Ky. Acts ch. 92 § 5(2), page 6, defines the two or more acts by reference to § 403.720; the LRC compilation of § 403.315(2) cites § 403.270 instead. Section 403.270 contains no such definition and itself refers to § 403.720, and KRS 7.136(1) bars the compilation from altering an act's meaning, so the definition in § 403.720 governs under either text. Act § 5(3)(a) says “domestic violence or abuse” where the compilation says “domestic violence and abuse”; both cite the § 403.720 definition, and no authoritative correction has been published. Both texts cite 920 KAR 5:020 for the batterer's intervention program; the LRC notes that no such regulation exists and that 922 KAR 5:020 appears on point, but that the intended correction is not manifestly clear. That question remains open; no operative correction is inferred.","Under § 403.317, after the specified finding of domestic violence and abuse, custody or parenting time may not be removed or reduced for a competent, nonabusive nonoffending party to whom the child is bonded or attached when the court finds removal would be solely to improve the relationship with the offending party. An order to remediate a child’s resistance to contact must primarily address the violent or abusive parent’s behavior.","Older cases, other current custody statutes and subsequent treatment were not re-audited in this scoped review."],"title":"Equal-time presumption and domestic-violence safeguards"},"fields":{"authority":"Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270(2)–(4); §§ 403.315, 403.317","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"12 lettered factors, plus prior consideration and findings under subsection (3)","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint custody and equally shared parenting time, rebuttable; domestic-violence exceptions apply","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"KRS § 403.270, current LRC text","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=57567"},{"label":"KRS § 403.315, presumptions in domestic violence cases","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=57568"},{"label":"KRS § 403.317, custody proceedings involving domestic violence","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=57566"},{"label":"2026 Ky. Acts ch. 92, §§ 2–3, 5","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/26RS/documents/0092.pdf"},{"label":"KRS § 403.720, definitions","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53719"},{"label":"KRS § 7.136, alterations permitted in maintaining the official KRS","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=474"},{"label":"922 KAR 5:020, batterer intervention provider certification standards","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/922/005/020/"},{"label":"2018 Ky. Acts ch. 198 § 5","url":"https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/acts/18RS/documents/0198.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-LA","name":"Louisiana","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 14.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Article 132 addresses parental custody agreements, joint custody when there is no qualifying agreement, and the clear-and-convincing sole-custody exception, subject to R.S. 9:364. R.S. 9:335(A)(1)–(2) governs implementation where joint custody is decreed.","Effective August 1, 2026, Act 605 § 1 amended R.S. 9:335(A)(2)(b). The enrolled text states: “Unless the court determines it is not feasible or in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the child shall be shared equally.” The enrolled text contains one “not.” The short description above expresses this reference’s editorial reading of the exception: where joint custody is decreed, physical custody is to be shared equally unless the court determines equal sharing is not feasible or not in the child’s best interest. The short description is a paraphrase of that selected reading, not a verbatim quotation of the statute.","No controlling judicial construction of this clause was verified in this bounded review. The legislative résumé digest repeats the same phrasing. This limited text comparison does not resolve how courts apply the clause, its interaction with family-violence rules, or modification of existing custody orders; case law and subsequent treatment were not reviewed."],"title":"Equal physical custody: statutory language and scope"},"fields":{"authority":"La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 134; La. Rev. Stat. § 9:335(A)(2)(b) (2026)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"14","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Where joint custody is decreed, physical custody is to be shared equally unless the court determines equal sharing is not feasible or not in the child’s best interest (R.S. 9:335(A)(2)(b), as amended by Act 605, effective August 1, 2026).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 132, 134","url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=108693"},{"label":"2026 La. Acts 605, official enrolled act","url":"https://legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1480364"},{"label":"Louisiana Civil Code art. 132","url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=108671"},{"label":"Louisiana R.S. 9:335","url":"https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=107527"},{"label":"HB 1239 legislative history","url":"https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=251669"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-ME","name":"Maine","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 19. Separately, § 1653(6-B) provides a rebuttable presumption concerning jeopardy and contact when the court finds specified child-related sexual-offense convictions or an adjudication of sexual abuse. The conditions and an age exception appear in the statute.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Me. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1653(3), (4), (6-B)","catch_all":"yes, (3)(N)","factors":"19","preference_age":"none","presumption":"None identified in the original survey; § 1653(4) bars parental preference based on parent’s gender or child’s age or gender.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Me. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1653","url":"https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/19-A/title19-Asec1653.html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MD","name":"Maryland","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 16. Maryland Rule 9-204.2(d), as amended effective July 1, 2026, requires the court reviewing the parties' joint statement to address the § 9-201(a) factors and articulate findings under § 9-201(b).","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§ 9-201, 9-103 (2025)","catch_all":"yes, § 9-201(a)(16)","child_voice_note":"No fixed preference age; “age-appropriate” under § 9-201(a)(15). At sixteen, a child subject to an existing custody order may petition to modify it in the child's own name under § 9-103. The court must hold a hearing, but the requested placement does not control.","factors":"16","preference_age":"No fixed preference age; “age-appropriate” under § 9-201(a)(15); at 16, child may petition to modify an existing order under § 9-103","presumption":"None in § 9-201","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"may consider, shall make findings"},"sources":[{"label":"Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 9-201 (2025)","url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gfl&section=9-201"},{"label":"2025 Md. Laws ch. 483 (H.B. 1191)","url":"https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/chapters_noln/Ch_483_hb1191T.pdf"},{"label":"Maryland 227th Rules Order, Rule 9-204.2(d)","url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules/order/ro227th.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MA","name":"Massachusetts","summary":"Statutory custody standards with specified mandatory considerations, rather than one comprehensive numbered factor list. Section 56 limits reliance on certain out-of-state laws and findings concerning gender-affirming health care, subject to its Massachusetts-law exception. It also requires consideration of likely disruption or cessation of care in the stated circumstances when a court alters custody, parenting time or visitation. It is not a general enumerated custody factor.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, §§ 31, 31A; ch. 209C, § 10","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"No single comprehensive numbered list. Sections 208:31 and 31A require specified custody considerations, including living conditions and abuse; § 209C:10(a) requires residence and parent-child relationship considerations in nonmarital custody.","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Temporary shared legal custody; express anti-presumption at trial; abuse rebuttable, § 31A","source_type":"Statutory standards; no single comprehensive numbered factor list","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, §§ 31, 31A; ch. 209C, § 10","url":"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section31"},{"label":"Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 56","url":"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section56"},{"label":"Massachusetts custody statutes — scoped reader review","url":"https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter209C/Section10"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MI","name":"Michigan","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 12.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.23","catch_all":"yes, (l)","factors":"12","preference_age":"none","presumption":"An order changing an established custodial environment requires clear and convincing evidence that the change serves the child’s best interests, § 722.27(1)(c). When a modification does not change that environment, the best-interest standard is a preponderance of the evidence.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"factors to be considered, evaluated and determined"},"sources":[{"label":"Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.23, 722.25, 722.27","url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-722-23"},{"label":"Winkler v. Winkler, No. 377570, Michigan Court of Appeals opinion","url":"https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20260513_C377570_46_377570.opn.pdf"},{"label":"MCL § 722.23","url":"https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-722-23"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MN","name":"Minnesota","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 12.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd. 1","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"12","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint legal custody is rebuttably presumed in the child’s best interests upon either or both parents’ request. There is no presumption for or against joint physical custody except the domestic-abuse presumption: if domestic abuse, as defined in § 518B.01, occurred between the parents, joint legal or joint physical custody is rebuttably presumed not to be in the child’s best interests. In deciding rebuttal, the court must consider the abuse’s nature and context and its implications for parenting and the child’s safety, well-being and developmental needs. Disagreement alone over sole or joint custody does not establish inability to cooperate (§ 518.17, subd. 1(b)(7), (9)).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"must"},"sources":[{"label":"Minn. Stat. § 518.17","url":"https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518.17"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MS","name":"Mississippi","summary":"Case-law framework; ten editorial groupings of Albright’s unnumbered considerations, including a catch-all.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Section 93-5-24(2), as amended by HB 1662, presumes joint custody and equally shared parenting time, rebuttable by a preponderance. It applies only to initial temporary and initial final custody orders entered after July 1, 2026, and expressly does not apply to modifications of orders entered before or after that date. A court that does not award joint custody with equal time generally must document its reasons; upon both parents’ petition it may grant legal and/or physical custody to one parent without documenting a reason for deviation.","The statute lists grounds for rebuttal, including an agreement on all custody issues and establishment of the separate family-violence presumption in subsection (7)(a). Section 93-5-24(5) also states there is no presumption that an award of legal or physical custody to a mother is in the child’s best interest.","Subsection (7)(a) separately provides a rebuttable presumption against placing a child in the sole custody, joint legal custody or joint physical custody of a parent with a history of perpetrating family violence in every proceeding where custody is disputed. The court may find that history by a preponderance based on one incident resulting in serious bodily injury or a pattern of family violence against the alleging party or a family household member of either party. Written findings address whether the presumption was triggered and rebutted, and the court must consider the listed rebuttal factors. The modification restriction in subsection (2)(e) expressly applies to the presumption authorized by subsection (2).","The legislative history identifies chapter 467, approval April 8 and effectiveness July 1, 2026. The archived bill text is the official sent-to-governor version, not a separately authenticated signed act or consolidated code. The Albright count and other inherited case-law claims remain unreviewed (HB 1662 pp. 2–7; legislative history)."],"title":"Initial-order and family-violence presumptions"},"fields":{"authority":"Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 93-5-24, 93-11-65(1)(a)","catch_all":"yes, grouped with the final stability consideration","child_voice_note":"Twelve. A chancellor may consider the preference when both parties are fit and either can adequately provide for the child. The court must explain why the child's wishes were or were not honored.","factors":"10 editorial groupings of an unnumbered paragraph","preference_age":"12 (preference may be considered when the statutory fitness conditions are met)","presumption":"Joint custody and equal parenting time presumed, rebuttably, for initial temporary and initial final custody orders entered after July 1, 2026, not modifications; no maternal presumption; separate family-violence presumption","source_type":"Case law","verb":"must address"},"sources":[{"label":"2026 Mississippi House Bill 1662, as sent to governor","url":"https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2026/pdf/HB/1600-1699/HB1662SG.pdf"},{"label":"Mississippi HB 1662 legislative history","url":"https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2026/pdf/history/HB/HB1662.xml"},{"label":"Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), reporter reproduction","url":"https://chancery13.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Albright-v.-Albright-437-So.2d-100.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MO","name":"Missouri","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 8.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.375.2","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"8","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Equal or approximately equal parenting time, rebuttable","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.375","url":"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=452.375"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MT","name":"Montana","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 13.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-212(1)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"13","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Frequent contact is a best-interest consideration subject to a detriment finding in (1)(l); (4) separately supplies rebuttable vexatious-action presumptions.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-212","url":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0400/chapter_0040/part_0020/section_0120/0400-0040-0020-0120.html"},{"label":"MCA40-4-212(1)(l),(4) — contact consideration and distinct presumptions","url":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0400/chapter_0040/part_0020/section_0120/0400-0040-0020-0120.html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NE","name":"Nebraska","summary":"Hybrid framework; factor structure: 6 + 5 mandates. The burden and special written findings in § 43-2932 depend on the specified factual findings. Section 43-2932 is not an unqualified presumption against every parent.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"6 + 5 mandates","preference_age":"none","presumption":"None; § 43-2932 shifts burden to an offending parent","source_type":"Hybrid","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-2923, 43-2932","url":"https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=43-2923"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NV","name":"Nevada","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 12.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"12","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint legal presumption (§ 125C.002) and joint physical preference (§ 125C.0025) apply when the parents agree to the respective award or a parent has demonstrated an intent to establish a meaningful relationship with the child, or attempted to do so but was frustrated by the other parent. Domestic-violence presumptions concern physical custody. After an evidentiary hearing and clear and convincing findings of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child, or another person residing with the child, §125C.003(1)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint physical custody when a parent perpetrated it; §125C.0035(5) creates a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint physical custody by the perpetrator, including another person seeking physical custody. The mutual-violence and primary-physical-aggressor rules in §125C.0035(6), and the §125C.210 exception, apply. This is not an exhaustive list of custody presumptions.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 125C.0015, 125C.002, 125C.0025, 125C.003, 125C.0035","url":"https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-125C.html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NH","name":"New Hampshire","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 13. RSA 461-A:6, I-b, effective September 13, 2026, limits consideration as an adverse factor of a parent's raising a child consistent with the child's biological sex, including the examples in the statute. It does not limit consideration of other legally relevant best-interest factors.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 461-A:6(I)","catch_all":"yes, (I)(m)","factors":"13","preference_age":"none; clear and convincing as to maturity","presumption":"No presumption, but findings required if approximately equal time is rejected (¶ I-a, eff. Jan. 1, 2025)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 461-A:6","url":"https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XLIII/461-A/461-A-6.htm"},{"label":"2026 N.H. Laws ch. 326, § 6 (HB 1376), enacted text","url":"https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?id=2247&sy=2026&txtFormat=html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NJ","name":"New Jersey","summary":"Statutory framework; 15 semicolon-delimited considerations.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Section 9:2-4 makes parental rights equal and provides for several custody arrangements. Its unnumbered factor paragraph following paragraph c has 15 semicolon-separated considerations; this count is an editorial convention, not a numbered statutory list. The court shall consider them without being limited to them. The professional-input factor applies, if any, to a state-licensed mental health professional providing private therapy or other services to the child, within the professional’s licensure.","P.L. 2025, c.316, effective January 20, 2026, states that child safety is paramount and a threshold issue in custody and access decisions. If an order is contrary to the child’s expressed preferences, the court must put on the record the factors justifying both the arrangement and its decision to disregard the preferences. A sufficient age and capacity to reason remains relevant to the preference factor.","The court may not presume that the child’s reluctance to interact with a party was caused by the other party. If there is evidence of a history of domestic violence or child abuse, the offending party shall not be granted increased custody to improve that relationship or address the child’s reluctance. Subsection g separately regulates court-ordered therapy and contains specific safety protections. These provisions have different triggers."],"title":"Child safety, preference and the factor count"},"fields":{"authority":"N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-4 (factor paragraph following subsection c)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"15 semicolon-delimited considerations","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Equal parental rights; § 9:2-4 bars a presumption about the cause of a child’s reluctance","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"P.L. 2025, c.316 — New Jersey custody provisions","url":"https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/PL25/316_.HTM"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NM","name":"New Mexico","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 5 + 9. Sections 40-4-9(A) and 40-4-9.1(B) address different inquiries. The nine joint-custody factors are not necessarily required to modify an existing joint-custody arrangement. See Davis v. Voss, No. A-1-CA-43097, ¶ 13 (N.M. Ct. App. 2026) (non-precedential).","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 40-4-9(A), 40-4-9.1","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"5 under § 40-4-9(A); 9 additional joint-custody factors under § 40-4-9.1(B) when determining whether joint custody is in the child’s best interests.","preference_age":"14 (hard statutory bifurcation)","presumption":"Joint custody in initial determinations, § 40-4-9.1(A)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 40-4-9, 40-4-9.1","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-40/article-4/section-40-4-9/"},{"label":"N.M. Stat. Ann. chapter 40, §§ 40-4-9 and 40-4-9.1","url":"https://www.nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/4375/1/document.do"},{"label":"Davis v. Voss, No. A-1-CA-43097 (N.M. Ct. App. 2026) (non-precedential)","url":"https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmca/en/538762/1/document.do"},{"label":"Jeantete v. Jeantete, 1990-NMCA-138","url":"https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmca/en/375736/1/document.do"},{"label":"Hopkins v. Wollaber, 2019-NMCA-024","url":"https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmca/en/417662/1/document.do"},{"label":"Hough v. Brooks, 2017-NMCA-050","url":"https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmca/en/374644/1/document.do"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NY","name":"New York","summary":"Case law framework; factor structure: n/a.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1)(a); Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982); Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89 (1982)","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"n/a","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Express anti-presumption: no prima facie right in either parent","source_type":"Case law","verb":"discretion"},"sources":[{"label":"N.Y. Domestic Relations Law §240(1)(a): targeted Senate displayed passage","url":"https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/DOM/240"},{"label":"Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982)","url":"https://openjurist.org/56/ny2d/167/eschbach-v-eschbach"},{"label":"Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89 (1982)","url":"https://nysocadmzmedia.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/video2/ad4/AttorneysForChildren/Fundamentals/Custody%20and%20Visitation/M.%20Brown.%2C%20Custody%20and%20Visitation%20Selected%20Statutes%20and%20Cases.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-NC","name":"North Carolina","summary":"No numbered general factor list. Section 50-13.2(a) requires all relevant factors, including domestic violence and child and party safety.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2(a)","catch_all":"all relevant factors, statutory preamble","factors":"No numbered general list; § 50-13.2(a) requires consideration of all relevant factors, including domestic violence between the parties, the child’s safety, and either party’s safety from domestic violence by the other.","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Express anti-presumption; joint custody considered on request","source_type":"No enumeration","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.2","url":"https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50/GS_50-13.2.html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-ND","name":"North Dakota","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 13.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-06.2(1)","catch_all":"yes, (1)(m)","factors":"13","preference_age":"none; clear and convincing as to maturity","presumption":"If the court finds credible evidence of domestic violence, as defined in § 14-07.1-01, plus one incident causing serious bodily injury or involving a dangerous weapon, or a pattern within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding, a rebuttable presumption bars residential responsibility for the perpetrating parent. Rebuttal requires clear and convincing evidence that the child’s best interests require that parent to have residential responsibility. The court must make specific protective findings (§ 14-09-06.2(1)(j)).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14-09-06.2, 14-09-06.5","url":"https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c09.pdf"},{"label":"N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)","url":"https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c09.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-OH","name":"Ohio","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 10 + 5.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04(F)(1)–(2)","catch_all":"preamble","factors":"10 listed factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); 5 additional shared-parenting factors under (F)(2), which also incorporates R.C. 3119.23; both lists are nonexclusive","preference_age":"none","presumption":"None","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.04","url":"https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3109.04"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-OK","name":"Oklahoma","summary":"No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. Separately, § 110.1 states that the court may provide substantially equal access on a parent's request unless it finds shared parenting detrimental to the child. Duggan v. Duggan describes § 110.1 as an equal-access presumption in a joint-custody modification case.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 109(A); preference at § 113","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"n/a","preference_age":"12 (rebuttable presumption of capacity)","presumption":"A court finding of child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, or harassment triggers a rebuttable presumption against custody or a shared parenting plan with the perpetrator and in favor of residence with the nonperpetrating parent (§ 109(I)(1)).","source_type":"No enumeration","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 109, 110.1, 113","url":"https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/os43.pdf"},{"label":"Oklahoma Statutes title 43, §§ 109 and 110.1","url":"https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os43.pdf"},{"label":"Duggan v. Duggan, 2026 OK CIV APP 12","url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=551474"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-OR","name":"Oregon","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 6.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.137(1)","catch_all":"§ 107.137(2) refers to other relevant factors","factors":"6","preference_age":"none","presumption":"DV rebuttable; joint custody requires both parents' agreement, § 107.169(3)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 107.137, 107.169","url":"https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors107.html"},{"label":"2025 Oregon Laws chapter 592, § 114","url":"https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2025orLaw0592.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-PA","name":"Pennsylvania","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 14.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5328(a)","catch_all":"yes, (a)(16)","factors":"14","preference_age":"none","presumption":"No presumption between parents, § 5327(a); in a parent–nonparent dispute, a presumption favors the parent and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, § 5327(b).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall, weighted"},"sources":[{"label":"23 Pa.C.S. ch. 53, §§ 5327–5328","url":"https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?chpt=53&div=0&iFrame=true&ttl=23&txtType=HTM"},{"label":"23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5327–5328","url":"https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?chpt=53&div=0&iFrame=true&ttl=23&txtType=HTM"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-RI","name":"Rhode Island","summary":"Case law framework; factor structure: 8. Parker describes the eight factors as nonexclusive, and Pettinato requires considering the combination and interaction of all relevant factors.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16","catch_all":"none","factors":"8","preference_age":"none","presumption":"None","source_type":"Case law","verb":"must weigh when relevant"},"sources":[{"label":"Parker v. Williams, No. 2005-136-Appeal (R.I. 2006)","url":"https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/05-136.pdf"},{"label":"Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990), opinion reproduction","url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/rhode-island/supreme-court/1990/582-a-2d-909.html"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-SC","name":"South Carolina","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 17.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240(B)","catch_all":"yes, (B)(17)","factors":"17","preference_age":"none","presumption":"None","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"must consider, may include"},"sources":[{"label":"S.C. Code Ann. § 63-15-240","url":"https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c015.php"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-SD","name":"South Dakota","summary":"Case law + guideline framework; factor structure: 7 categories.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-4-45, 25-4A-11; Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 1999 S.D. 35, 591 N.W.2d 798","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"7 categories","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Express anti-preference; § 25-4A-11 provides an initial twelve-month-primary-caregiver arrangement unless the parties agree otherwise and states that imposing standard guidelines creates no presumption as to the custody award at a hearing.","source_type":"Case law + guideline","verb":"consultative"},"sources":[{"label":"S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25-4-45, 25-4A-11, 25-5-7.1","url":"https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/25-4-45"},{"label":"South Dakota parenting guidelines, effective July 1, 2026","url":"https://ujs.sd.gov/media/whpoobvq/parenting-guidelines-effective-july-1-2026.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-TN","name":"Tennessee","summary":"Statutory framework; 18 numbered subdivisions including catch-all for actions within 2025 Chapter 265.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","presumption_explanation":{"paragraphs":["Public Chapter 683, effective July 1, 2026, makes the child’s best interest paramount in the factor lead-in and inserts subdivision (17) on meaningful opportunities in a proposed or ordered parenting schedule. It expressly creates no parenting-time presumption. Public Chapter 265 of 2025 substituted subdivisions (15)–(17), with the catch-all at (17), and applies to actions filed on or after July 1, 2025. For actions within Chapter 265, applying Chapter 683’s insertion and redesignation yields 18 numbered subdivisions including the catch-all at (18). For an action filed before July 1, 2025, Chapter 265 does not apply by its own terms; the enacted text is the list substituted by 2025 Public Chapter 321 (effective on becoming law in May 2025): sixteen numbered subdivisions with the catch-all at (16). Chapter 683 (effective July 1, 2026) has no application clause and is drafted against the Chapter 265 numbering, so how its new factor applies to a pending earlier-filed action is not stated in any act; no decision or codification note read resolves it. Before Chapter 321, the 2025 Code Bill shows sixteen subdivisions with the catch-all at (15). ","For actions within Public Chapter 265, its section 1 directs consideration of the factors only if the limitations in § 36-6-406(a)–(d) are not dispositive of the residential schedule, and requires written findings on whether those limitations apply. Public Chapter 758 extends the specified findings language to temporary as well as permanent custody orders. This summary does not describe the substance of the limitations.","Separately, § 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)(i) establishes a joint-custody presumption where the parents agree to joint custody, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Subdivisions (ii)–(iii) provide a distinct presumption against custody for a parent convicted of specified sexual offenses against a child under 18, unless the court finds clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; it applies to convictions on or after July 1, 2006, and allowed visitation must be supervised. Other statutory safety restrictions may apply.","Section 36-6-106(e), in the 2025 Code Bill and 2025 code reproduction, says a parent’s disability alone is not considered for or against custody unless it affects the parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. This differs from a general presumption. "],"title":"Factor count, parenting time and custody presumptions"},"fields":{"authority":"Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-106(a), (e); 36-6-101(a)(2)(A)","catch_all":"preamble and (a)(18), last, for actions within Chapter 265","factors":"18 numbered subdivisions including catch-all, for actions within 2025 Chapter 265","preference_age":"12","presumption":"Joint custody presumed when parents agree, subject to clear and convincing contrary evidence; specified child-sex-offense presumption against custody","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"2026 Tennessee Public Chapter 683","url":"https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0683.pdf"},{"label":"Tennessee 2025 Code Bill, volume 1, §§ 36-6-101 and 36-6-106","url":"https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Archives/Joint/publications/TNCodeBills/2025/TNCodeBill_Volume1_2025.pdf"},{"label":"Tennessee Code § 36-6-106 (2025)","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-36/chapter-6/part-1/section-36-6-106/"},{"label":"2025 Tennessee Public Chapter 265","url":"https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0265.pdf"},{"label":"2025 Tennessee Public Chapter 321","url":"https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0321.pdf"},{"label":"2026 Tennessee Public Chapter 758","url":"https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0758.pdf"},{"label":"2026 Public Chapter683","url":"https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0683.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-TX","name":"Texas","summary":"Case law framework; factor structure: 9 (Holley); 7 (§ 153.134(a)).","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002; Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976)","catch_all":"§ 153.134(a)(7)","factors":"9 (Holley); 7 (§ 153.134(a))","preference_age":"12","presumption":"Two distinct presumptions apply in different settings. In parent-versus-nonparent suits, a parent is presumed to act in the child’s best interest and the child’s care, custody, and control by a parent is presumed to be in the child’s best interest. A nonparent may rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence that denying the requested relief would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development; a court granting relief must state supporting facts and the extent the presumption was overcome. This 2025 amendment applies to suits pending in a trial court on or after September 1, 2025, or filed on or after that date (§ 153.002(b)–(c); SB 2052 §§ 2, 4–5). Separately, § 153.131(b) presumes appointment of parents as joint managing conservators is in the child’s best interest, a finding of a history of family violence involving the parents removes that presumption (§ 153.131(b)).","source_type":"Case law","verb":"shall (standard)"},"sources":[{"label":"Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.002, 153.009, 153.131, 153.134, 161.001, 263.307","url":"https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/FA/htm/FA.153.htm"},{"label":"Texas Family Code § 153.002(a)–(c), current official text","url":"https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/FA/htm/FA.153.htm"},{"label":"Enrolled Texas SB 2052, §§ 2, 4–5","url":"https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SB02052F.htm"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-UT","name":"Utah","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 3 mandatory + 18 discretionary (including catch-all). Subsection (10) separately requires consideration of domestic violence evidence and primary consideration of safety and well-being. H.B. 303 § 4 added coercive control, with a special effective-date clause in its § 10.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Utah Code Ann. § 81-9-204 (recodified 2024)","catch_all":"yes, (4)(r)","factors":"3 mandatory + 18 discretionary (including catch-all)","preference_age":"14 (added weight)","presumption":"Express anti-presumption, (7); preponderance burden stated at (2)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall / may"},"sources":[{"label":"Utah Code Ann. § 81-9-204","url":"https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title81/Chapter9/81-9-S204.html"},{"label":"2026 Utah H.B. 303, chapter 309, enrolled copy","url":"https://le.utah.gov/Session/2026/bills/enrolled/HB0303.pdf"},{"label":"Utah §81-9-204 — May 6, 2026 section","url":"https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title81/Chapter9/C81-9-S204_2026050620260506.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-VT","name":"Vermont","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 9.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 665(b)","catch_all":"No separate catch-all factor; § 665(b) requires consideration of at least the nine listed factors.","factors":"9","preference_age":"n/a — no preference factor","presumption":"When parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) directs a primary or sole award. Discrete legal responsibilities may be allocated between parents with supported best-interest findings (Gordon, 2025 VT 24, ¶¶ 15–16).","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 665","url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/15/011/00665"},{"label":"Vermont §665 and discrete legal allocation — scoped review","url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/15/011/00665"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-VA","name":"Virginia","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 10. Under § 20-124.2(B), a person's legal possession or consumption of substances authorized under Title 4.1 or Chapter 34 of Title 54.1 alone is no basis to restrict custody or visitation, unless other facts establish that the possession or consumption is not in the child's best interest.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Va. Code Ann. § 20-124.3","catch_all":"yes, (10)","factors":"10","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Express anti-presumption, § 20-124.2(B)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Va. Code Ann. §§ 20-124.2, 20-124.3","url":"https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title20/chapter6.1/section20-124.3/"},{"label":"2026 Va. Acts ch. 711 (HB 942), § 20-124.2(B)","url":"https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1222330.PDF"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-WA","name":"Washington","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 7.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.187(3)(a)","catch_all":"none — closed","factors":"7","preference_age":"none","presumption":"The original seven-factor entry identifies no general presumption; §§ 26.09.191 and .192 limitations can be dispositive. Section .192 separately provides specified rebuttable safety presumptions and mandatory restraints concerning sexual abuse or sex offenses against children.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.09.002, 26.09.187, 26.09.191","url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.09.187"},{"label":"RCW 26.09.192: specified safety presumptions and restraints","url":"https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.09.192"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-WV","name":"West Virginia","summary":"Presumption + rebuttal factors framework; factor structure: 8 objectives; 7 rebuttal categories.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"W. Va. Code §§ 48-9-102, -102a, -206, -209","catch_all":"§ 48-9-209(f) stem","factors":"8 objectives; 7 rebuttal categories","preference_age":"14; younger child if sufficiently mature","presumption":"Equal (50-50) custodial allocation, rebuttable by preponderance","source_type":"Presumption + rebuttal factors","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"W. Va. Code §§ 48-9-102, 48-9-102a, 48-9-206, 48-9-209","url":"https://code.wvlegislature.gov/48-9-102a/"},{"label":"W. Va. Code § 48-9-102","url":"https://code.wvlegislature.gov/48-9-102/"},{"label":"W. Va. Code § 48-9-206","url":"https://code.wvlegislature.gov/48-9-206/"},{"label":"W. Va. Code § 48-9-209","url":"https://code.wvlegislature.gov/48-9-209/"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-WI","name":"Wisconsin","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 14.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Wis. Stat. § 767.41(5)(am)","catch_all":"yes, 14.","factors":"14","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Joint legal custody is presumed in the child’s best interests under § 767.41(2)(am). If the court finds by a preponderance that a party engaged in a qualifying pattern or serious incident of statutory interspousal battery or domestic abuse, § 767.41(2)(d) instead creates a rebuttable presumption against joint or sole legal custody for that party. Rebuttal requires a preponderance of evidence that the party successfully completed batterer treatment through a certified program or provider, is not abusing alcohol or any other drug, and that an award to that party is in the child’s best interests under the statutory factors. If both parties qualify, the presumption concerns the primary physical aggressor determined under (d)2–3; it does not apply if neither was the primary physical aggressor. Subdivision (d)3 governs the case where only one party has the specified domestic-abuse conviction.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall, no order of importance"},"sources":[{"label":"Wis. Stat. § 767.41","url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/V/41"},{"label":"Wis. Stat. § 767.41","url":"https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/V/41"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-WY","name":"Wyoming","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 11. The list is open, with a catch-all at (a)(xi). The absence of an express child-preference factor does not make a child's preference always irrelevant under the catch-all or case law. Subsections (b)–(d) separately address gender, abuse and safety, and custody-form neutrality.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a)","catch_all":"yes, (a)(xi)","factors":"11","preference_age":"n/a — no preference factor","presumption":"Express anti-presumption, (d)","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201","url":"https://www.wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title20.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-PR","name":"Puerto Rico","summary":"Statutory framework; factor structure: 13 (art. 604). Separately, in domestic-violence protection proceedings, Law 54 art. 2.9, as amended by Act 120-2026 § 3, requires consideration of any Department of the Family evaluation before a court authorizes or modifies contact between minors and the respondent.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"Código Civil de 2020 art. 604, 31 L.P.R.A. § 7283; Act 223-2011 art. 7, 32 L.P.R.A. § 3185","catch_all":"yes, (m)","factors":"13 (art. 604)","preference_age":"none located","presumption":"Shared custody is considered as a first option when it serves the child’s best interests; it is not compulsory and Act 223-2011 art. 9 exclusions apply.","source_type":"Statutory","verb":"shall"},"sources":[{"label":"Civil Code 2020 arts. 603–605, including art. 604: government-hosted OGP Spanish compilation (rev. August 21, 2026)","url":"https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/55-2020.pdf"},{"label":"Act 223-2011, custody adjudication, arts. 4, 7–9","url":"https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/Menores%20de%20Edad/223-2011/223-2011.pdf"},{"label":"Act 120-2026 § 3: Law 54 art. 2.9, social-work evaluation and contact in protection proceedings","url":"https://sutra.oslpr.org/SutraFilesGen/159653/Ley%20120-2026.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-GU","name":"Guam","summary":"Hybrid directory framework; factor structure: 16 numbered standards.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"19 Guam Code Ann. § 8404","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"16 numbered standards","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Legislative visitation policy under §8404(a)(8): for children and noncustodial parents living on Guam, the court shall, to the greatest degree possible, order more or less equal non-working, non-sleeping, non-school time, subject to (A)–(J). Lanser limits this policy to both parents living on Guam; it is not a general equal-custody presumption.","source_type":"Hybrid directory","verb":"is to be guided by"},"sources":[{"label":"19 Guam Code Ann. §§ 8404, 9108","url":"https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/19gc008.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-VI","name":"U.S. Virgin Islands","summary":"Case law framework; factor structure: 5. Within its court-finding-of-domestic-violence context, §109(c)(3) bars weighing an absence or relocation caused by the other parent’s violence against the parent in custody or visitation.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"16 V.I.C. § 109; James v. Faust, 65 V.I. 349 (V.I. 2016)","catch_all":"expressly non-exhaustive","factors":"5","preference_age":"none","presumption":"When a marriage is declared void or dissolved, § 109(a) permits future-custody orders for minor children of the marriage. In that setting, a court finding of domestic violence raises a rebuttable presumption favoring the child’s residence with the nonperpetrator parent in that parent’s chosen location within or outside the territory, or with a legal guardian (§ 109(b)). The text also applies the presumption when a parent has been convicted for the other parent’s death or the child was conceived by rape.","source_type":"Case law","verb":"mandatory if relevant"},"sources":[{"label":"16V.I.C.§109 — conditional final-order residence and safety provisions","url":"https://law.justia.com/codes/virgin-islands/title-16/chapter-3/109/"},{"label":"James v. Faust, 65 V.I. 349 (V.I. 2016)","url":"https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-faust-virginislands-2016"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-MP","name":"Northern Mariana Islands","summary":"No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. 8 CMC § 1311 permits custody orders according to justice and the best interests of all concerned. Robinson holds that the best interests of the child control, while courts must take into account the interests of all concerned. Robinson enumerates no factors. Subject to the confirmation procedure in § 1105, § 1104 excludes adoptions, annulments and divorces effected in accordance with local custom from this division.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"8 CMC § 1311; Robinson v. Robinson, 1 N.M.I. 81 (1990)","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"n/a","preference_age":"none","presumption":"On the specified judicial domestic- or family-violence finding, §1931 creates a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint custody with the perpetrator; §1933 creates a rebuttable best-interest presumption favoring the child’s residence with the nonperpetrator parent in that parent’s chosen location, within or outside the Commonwealth. Section 1932 supplies separate safety factors and relocation protection.","source_type":"No enumeration","verb":"may"},"sources":[{"label":"8 CMC §§ 1104, 1311, 1601–1624; Robinson v. Robinson, 1 N.M.I. 81 (1990)","url":"https://www.cnmilaw.org/pdf/cmc_section/T8/1311.pdf"},{"label":"8 CMC §1931","url":"https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/cmc_section/T8/1931.pdf"},{"label":"8 CMC §1932","url":"https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/cmc_section/T8/1932.pdf"},{"label":"8 CMC §1933","url":"https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/cmc_section/T8/1933.pdf"},{"label":"8 CMC §1104","url":"https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/cmc_section/T8/1104.pdf"},{"label":"8 CMC §1105","url":"https://cnmilaw.gov/docs/cmc_section/T8/1105.pdf"}]},{"jurisdiction_id":"US-AS","name":"American Samoa","summary":"No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a.","surveyed_through":"2026-08-16","fields":{"authority":"A.S.C.A. § 42.0210; Tapeni v. Tapeni, 6 A.S.R.3d 81 (High Ct. App. Div. 2002)","catch_all":"n/a","factors":"n/a","preference_age":"none","presumption":"Fit parent rebuttably preferred over a third party (Tapeni)","source_type":"No enumeration","verb":"may"},"sources":[{"label":"A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0202, 42.0210; Tapeni v. Tapeni, 6 A.S.R.3d 81 (High Ct. App. Div. 2002)","url":"https://asbar.org/code-annotated/42-0210-custody-of-minor-children/"},{"label":"Tapeni v. Tapeni, American Samoa Bar Association opinion reproduction","url":"https://asbar.org/case-law/ilaisa-tapenivausage-tapeni/"}]}]}