A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 14-09-00.1 and 14-09-29 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to parental rights and responsibilities; and to provide for application.
HB 1242 would revise North Dakota’s child custody and parenting-time statutes by creating a rebuttable presumption that shared decisionmaking responsibility and shared residential responsibility are in the best interests of a child in proceedings under Chapter 14-09. Under the bill, courts would generally be required to award both parents shared authority and roughly equal or approximately equal residential time unless the presumption is overcome by a preponderance of the evidence showing harm, danger to the child’s physical or emotional health, or that a shared schedule is not feasible because exchanges cannot occur at least every seven days.
The bill also specifies situations in which the shared-responsibility presumption would not apply at all, including when there is a protection order or no-contact order, when the court finds domestic violence meeting certain severity or pattern thresholds, or when a parent has sexually abused a child. In those cases, the court would instead apply the existing best-interests framework and, for certain domestic-violence findings, require supervised parenting time unless unsupervised contact is proven safe by clear and convincing evidence. The bill further requires a perpetrator of qualifying domestic violence to pay court-related costs and fees unless doing so would create undue financial hardship, and it allows the first post-effective-date motion in an action to proceed under the new presumption and evidentiary standard despite usual limits on modifications.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it shifts North Dakota custody law toward a default of shared parenting in both decisionmaking and residential time, while preserving judicial discretion to protect children in cases involving abuse, violence, or impractical parenting schedules. It would amend the statutory definitions of parental rights and responsibilities and alter how courts evaluate and structure parenting plans, parenting schedules, and residential responsibility under the Century Code.
Overall sentiment appears mixed but somewhat supportive of the bill’s shared-parenting approach, as reflected by the House second-reading vote passing 47-37. The vote suggests meaningful support, but also substantial opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the close vote indicates the proposal was not broadly consensus-driven.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s strong presumption in favor of equal or near-equal parenting time and whether that presumption could be too rigid in individual cases. Supporters would likely view it as promoting parental equality and consistency in custody decisions, while opponents may worry it could reduce judicial flexibility or create pressure toward shared custody even where family circumstances are complicated. The domestic-violence and sexual-abuse exceptions appear designed to address those concerns, but the scope of the presumption and the evidentiary burden for rebutting it remain the bill’s central policy issue.
HB 1242 would amend North Dakota Century Code sections 14-09-00.1 and 14-09-29 to establish a statutory presumption favoring shared decisionmaking responsibility and shared residential responsibility in child custody and parenting-rights cases. It would also modify related definitions and require courts to make specific findings when the presumption does not apply or is rebutted. The bill would affect parents involved in custody disputes, as well as courts determining parenting plans, residential responsibility, and parenting time, while preserving exceptions for domestic violence, sexual abuse, and certain practical infeasibility concerns.
The available voting history suggests the bill had notable support but also significant resistance. It passed House second reading 47-37, indicating a divided chamber rather than broad agreement. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded discussion to show detailed arguments, but the close vote implies the bill’s shared-parenting presumption was persuasive to many members while remaining controversial to others.
The central contention is whether North Dakota should adopt a default presumption of shared parenting time and shared decisionmaking in custody cases. Supporters likely favor the bill as a way to promote both parents’ involvement and reduce unequal custody outcomes, while opponents may view the presumption as too sweeping and potentially inconsistent with individualized best-interests determinations. Another likely point of debate is whether the domestic-violence and sexual-abuse exceptions are sufficiently protective, especially given the bill’s evidentiary standards and the requirement for courts to find specific conditions before the presumption is displaced.