Shared parenting should be the starting point when two fit parents separate. Children are not prizes, and fathers should not enter family court as visitors in their own families.
A father can attend every appointment, pack every lunch, coach the team and read every bedtime story. Then the relationship ends, the paperwork begins and he discovers that his status as an equal parent was less secure than he thought.
Family courts say they decide custody according to the best interests of the child. That principle is necessary, but it is also broad enough to conceal almost any assumption. Too often, the old assumption survives beneath modern language: the mother is the parent and the father is asking for access.
A fit father should not have to prove that he deserves half of his child’s life. Equal parenting time should be the starting point when both parents are capable, willing and safe. A judge can depart from that starting point when evidence of abuse, neglect, instability or impractical distance requires it. But the burden should fall on the person asking to reduce a child’s relationship with the other parent.
Several states have moved toward shared-parenting presumptions, and proposals continue to surface elsewhere, including New York. The reform is often described as a gift to fathers. That gets the principle backward. Children have an interest in meaningful relationships with both fit parents, and the law should not demote either one without a reason.
Critics raise legitimate concerns. An automatic fifty-fifty schedule can be dangerous in a violent household. It can be unworkable when parents live far apart or when one parent has barely participated. High-conflict couples can use constant exchanges to continue fighting.
Those are arguments for a rebuttable presumption, not for treating every father as a secondary parent. Rules already make exceptions when facts defeat the ordinary starting point. The existence of bad parents does not justify making good parents audition for equality.
The current ambiguity creates its own incentives for conflict. When both sides believe the first temporary order may harden into the permanent arrangement, every disagreement becomes evidence. Lawyers advise caution, parents document minor failures and children become the terrain on which adults establish leverage.
A clear presumption of shared parenting could reduce that strategic panic. It tells both parents that neither begins with ownership and neither can win simply by running out the clock.
The cultural issue goes deeper than statutes. Mothers are still more likely to be treated as indispensable while fathers are treated as helpful. A mother caring for children is parenting. A father doing the same work is praised for being involved, as if he were an unusually dedicated volunteer.
That stereotype harms women by assuming caregiving is naturally theirs. It harms men by making their bond with their children appear optional. After separation, the same stereotype can turn into a legal disadvantage with consequences measured in missed mornings, holidays and years.
Equal parenting is not a claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable in every detail. It is a recognition that children can depend deeply on both. The law does not need to rank the kinds of love before the evidence is heard.
The reform must also be honest about enforcement. A parenting order is worthless if one parent can repeatedly obstruct it without consequence. Courts should respond quickly to denied time, manipulation and efforts to poison a child’s relationship with the other parent. They should be equally serious when a parent raises credible safety concerns. Neither alienation nor abuse should become a slogan that automatically defeats the other allegation.
Family court will never become simple. Human relationships are too complicated and the stakes are too intimate. But complexity is not an excuse for an unequal starting line.
Two fit parents should enter court as parents. Not a default custodian and a visitor. Not an owner and an applicant.
If evidence shows that equal time would harm the child, a judge should say so and explain why. Otherwise, the law should protect the child’s right to keep both parents fully present.
A father should not have to prove he matters. The state should need a reason before deciding that he matters less.
Marcus Bennett is a conservative commentator focused on crime, education, economic opportunity, urban policy, and American culture. Raised in a working-class community outside Atlanta, Bennett developed his politics around the belief that public policy should be judged by results rather than intentions. His columns frequently examine failing institutions, public safety, family stability, educational reform, and the political assumptions surrounding Black Americans. Bennett brings a skeptical, data-driven approach to political arguments and has little patience for ideological explanations that fail to match conditions on the ground.
Discussion
Loading discussion…