Marriage and family; child custody agreements; terminating agreements; effective date.
HB1082 amends Oklahoma’s child custody statute to create a rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time are in a child’s best interest. It requires parents seeking joint custody to submit a parenting plan covering living arrangements, support, medical and dental care, school placement, and visitation, along with affidavits agreeing to follow the plan. The court may approve the plan with changes, reject joint custody, or modify the plan later if doing so serves the child’s best interests.
The bill also expands and clarifies the factors courts must consider when custody is disputed. It adds detailed definitions of child abuse, domestic violence, harassment, and stalking, and directs courts to treat findings of abuse, domestic violence, stalking, harassment, or sex-offender registration as creating a rebuttable presumption against custody or shared parenting with the offending parent. It further states that a parent’s absence or relocation due to domestic violence should not count against that parent, and it emphasizes the safety and well-being of the child and the abused parent as primary considerations. The bill takes effect November 1, 2025.
HB1082 would amend 43 O.S. Section 109, the state’s core child custody statute, by shifting the custody framework toward a presumption favoring joint custody and shared parenting time while preserving the court’s authority to decide based on the child’s best interests. It would also strengthen statutory protections in cases involving abuse, domestic violence, harassment, stalking, and sex-offender registration, and it would formalize requirements for parenting plans and court review of modifications or termination of joint custody decrees.
The bill appears to have broad support overall, especially in the House, where it advanced with strong committee and floor votes. The near-unanimous third-reading vote suggests general agreement with the bill’s custody framework and its protections for children and victims of abuse. The lone committee dissent indicates there may be some concern about the presumption favoring joint custody or the bill’s detailed custody standards, but the recorded votes show little organized opposition.
The main points of contention are likely the new rebuttable presumption in favor of joint custody and equally shared parenting time, and how that presumption interacts with judicial discretion in individual cases. Another possible area of concern is the bill’s expanded treatment of domestic violence, harassment, stalking, and sex-offender status as custody-disqualifying factors, which some may view as necessary protections and others may see as broad or potentially difficult to apply. The committee vote of 7-1 in Civil Judiciary suggests at least one member objected to the amended version, though no transcript is available to identify the specific objection.