A BILL for an Act to create and enact four new sections to chapter 14-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to parental rights and responsibilities, equal residential responsibility, and the presumption of fitness; to amend and reenact sections 14-09-00.1, 14-09-06.2, and 14-09-07 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of equal decisionmaking responsibility and equal parenting time, the best interests of the child factors, and the residence of a child; and to provide for application.
SB2383 would substantially revise North Dakota’s child-custody and parenting-time laws by creating a strong presumption that both parents are fit and that equal residential responsibility should be awarded unless a court finds a parent unfit or equal time would be inappropriate under specified exceptions. The bill also redefines key custody terms, including “equal decisionmaking responsibility” and “equal parenting time,” and adds new protections requiring courts to treat parents and children as entitled to due process and equal protection in proceedings under chapter 14-09.
The measure would limit when courts may rely on the traditional “best interests of the child” factors. Under the bill, those factors could be considered only after a finding of parental unfitness or a determination that equal residential responsibility is inappropriate. It also preserves and restates existing considerations for domestic violence, special-needs children, infants, military deployment, and long-distance parenting arrangements, while directing courts to maximize parenting time where equal residential responsibility is not feasible. The bill further restricts relocation of a child, especially where parents share equal residential responsibility, and applies its new standards to custody actions involving children under 18, including the first motion filed after the effective date.
If enacted, SB2383 would shift North Dakota family law toward a default of shared parenting and shared decisionmaking, raising the evidentiary burden for a parent seeking to avoid equal residential responsibility. It would affect courts, parents in custody disputes, and children subject to parenting plans, and would amend statutes governing definitions, best-interests analysis, and child residence/relocation. The bill also appears to narrow judicial discretion by requiring clear and convincing evidence of unfitness before moving to the best-interests analysis.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears negative or at least insufficiently supportive, as the bill ultimately failed and no committee transcript or recorded vote history is provided. Based on the text alone, the proposal reflects a policy preference for equal parenting and parental rights, but it also preserves exceptions for child safety and practical limitations. Because there is no discussion transcript, there is no documented floor or committee debate to identify specific supporters or opponents.
The main points of contention likely center on whether courts should be required to start from a presumption of equal residential responsibility and parental fitness, and whether that approach could reduce flexibility in protecting children’s best interests in individual cases. Potential concerns would come from those who favor broader judicial discretion, especially in cases involving domestic violence, special needs, infants, or highly conflictual parenting situations. Supporters would likely emphasize parental equality, shared custody, and limiting perceived bias in custody determinations.
SB2383 would amend North Dakota Century Code chapter 14-09 to create new statutory presumptions and custody rules, including a presumption that each parent is fit and that equal residential responsibility should be ordered unless specific exceptions apply. It would also revise definitions of equal decisionmaking responsibility, equal parenting time, and related custody terms, and it would constrain when courts may apply the best-interests-of-the-child factors. The bill would affect custody and relocation disputes, parenting plans, and judicial decisionmaking in family court, while preserving express exceptions for unfitness, domestic violence, infants, special-needs children, military service, and certain relocation circumstances.
The bill’s policy direction is strongly pro-shared-parenting and pro-parental-rights, but the available record shows no committee testimony or vote details to indicate active support in the legislative process. Its final status as failed suggests it did not gain sufficient legislative backing. The text itself indicates an intent to standardize equal residential responsibility while retaining safety-based exceptions, which may have appealed to supporters of custody reform but raised concerns among those prioritizing judicial discretion and individualized best-interests determinations.
The central controversy is the bill’s presumption of equal residential responsibility and its requirement that courts treat both parents as fit unless unfitness is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Critics would likely argue that this could make it harder to protect children in complex custody cases and could limit the court’s ability to weigh the full best-interests factors early in the analysis. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s restriction on judicial priority to any parent and its relocation rules, which could be seen as limiting flexibility for families who live far apart or have practical scheduling constraints. Supporters would likely contend that the bill corrects bias in custody decisions and promotes equal parenting, while opponents would likely focus on child safety, domestic violence concerns, and preserving judicial discretion.