Trending
A children's rights, trauma-informed perspective reframes custody statutes as children's rights instruments, not just sources of parental entitlements. Laws should emphasize: the child's needs, especially for the very young, as well as their voice and participatory rights; the child's schedule, especially the healthy dimensions of routine and stability; the need for statutes to integrate developmental science, including age-specific needs, attachment, and each child's key milestones, transitions and individual needs; and the long-term trauma impacts of forced contact with unsafe or unresponsive parents. Respectfully, House Bill 1499 fails that test.
Child-centered thinking seems to be at the core of human experience. Adults have, or should have, an inherent responsibility to care for their young. Making children the center of attention and respect, as a societal or legal priority, likewise should be a goal shared across families, systems and governments. Yet notwithstanding the ubiquitous "best interests of the child" standard that appears in so many areas of the law, children are often kept out of the equation of decision-making. That's happening here.
With its presumption of 50-50 custodial time, House Bill 1499 presents itself as a child-centered bill.
The lead sponsor Rep. Flick has observed: "This is not a bill about parents," he explained. "It's a bill about children. And children do best when both parents are part of their lives."
Actually, Representative Flick has a good point: in many cases children do well with both parents in their lives. Studies show there can be benefits of substantial time with both parents. However, here we are invited to ask a more specific question: does every child do best when both parents are part of their lives, in equal measure, and possibly without other meaningful information or limits? I think not!
I like "reality checks" when I am testing policy recommendations: HOW DOES THIS WORK IN PRACTICE? I would venture that every person in this room can name one situation that they know personally, where the child would NOT do better if a certain parent had more time or a greater role in their child's life. One-size-fits-all can be harmful when it comes to children - that's why custody determinations should continue to be individualized.
Child-centered thinking places the child at the center of the custody inquiry: what does THIS child want and need? Here we should ask: WHO IS THE CUSTODY SCHEDULE SERVING?
Typical shared-physical custodial arrangements have the child moving back and forth between the parents' houses: in the language of the Act, "primary physical" = "majority of time" and "partial physical" = "less than majority of time". A common scenario has the child at one parent for some or all school nights, and the other for some/most weekends. Often, the child moves back and forth several times during the week, or every other week, and on most weekends, each and every week.
50-50 arrangements generally maximize the number and frequency of moves.
Folks often dismiss the problems inherent in these shared-time experiences. We say: "My child needs more time with me." "It's OK. Moving back and forth doesn't really bother her. She has her own room in each house." Being more candid, I'd observe: 50-50 primarily asks the CHILD to do a LOT of moving!
I like to use the custodial arrangement known as "nesting", not as a recommendation per se, but as a study-example of a child-centered approach. Nesting (as a model) means the child stays in one home, and the parents rotate in and out according to the custody schedule. It is often used temporarily during separation to stabilize the child's environment; I have close friends who did it for years. The child "stays put" and the parents move! To be clear, nesting is not very practical for many families, simply from a financial point of view: each parent needs a place to stay when they are NOT staying in the "nest" home. But by replacing the child-moving with the parent-moving, the model is useful to unmask elements of typical custody-sharing arrangements that fail to place the child at the center.
What happens when we minimize the child moving? We improve the child's continuity of sleep, routines, and school preparation. We increase attachment stability for preschool and early-elementary children. We reduce the child's stress and "backpack chaos" (i.e., lost homework, uniforms, devices). Stress is not good for anyone, but its really not good for children.
Again: WHO IS THE SCHEDULE SERVING? Custodial schedules are generally built more on what works for the parent than what works for the child. I have spoken to hundreds of children and young people about the experience of visitation and time-sharing of and with their parents. Almost always, they are reluctant to "throw one or other parent under the bus" by criticizing the arrangement. They tolerate the constant changes, the loss of personal space, the restrictions inevitably placed on friend-relationships and school activities. They often respect the desire of their parent to have parenting time. But do they like all the moving? My experience leads me to say: Not so much!
House Bill 1499 sets a presumption of 50-50 physical custody, or "equal parenting time". We all know intuitively how presumptions work: presumptions create their own bias - they always do! That's the point. They lean one way, on purpose.
Generally speaking, presumptions change the starting point, THEY TIP THE SCALE. But they do so without any facts. Here, the presumption starts with ONE fact: this person is the parent. And because he or she is the parent, 1499 would establish that they are entitled to equal time. Tellingly, that presumptive mechanism proceeds with NO FACTS about the child, and no facts about the relationship of either parent to the child, nor about their ability to parent or to co-parent. IF a party can demonstrate - by their litigation, by their experts, by their lawyering, and by the high bar of "clear and convincing evidence" - that a different schedule is needed, THEN the court might move from the presumptive starting point. That just seems backward. A child-centered approach BEGINS by asking: WHAT DOES THIS CHILD NEED?
As required by the statute, Pennsylvania courts currently evaluate custody using the "16-factors" model - the "numbering" has changed a bit over the years - as enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).
The factors include which parent is more likely to encourage frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, the present and past abuse committed by either parent, parental duties performed by each parent, and the proximity of the parents' residences. Stability and continuity for the child, sibling relationships, and the child's preference (based on maturity), are part of the mix.
The recently-enacted Act 11 of 2025 actually improved the factor-analysis, with leadership provided by Rep. Krupa and Rep. Flick.
These "factors to consider when awarding custody" were created in a well-intentioned, thoughtful reform initiative that started more than 15 years ago. The mechanism is well-regarded by most practitioners and jurists. It has stood the test of time.
Courts have significant latitude in determining which factors deserve emphasis in any particular case. The standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." There is no indication that courts are failing to comply with the law, which requires explicit on-the-record findings on all the factors. This discretion allows judges to tailor custody arrangements to individual family circumstances. People are different, and one-size-DOESN'T-fit-all.
Unfortunately, under House Bill 1499, most of the factors set forth in §5328 are ELIMINATED! The much-lauded Kayden's Law protec tions are eviscerated. The analysis is reduced to the short summary list: "... including past abuse committed by a party or member of the party's household, the level of conflict between the parties and the willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one another."
HB 1499 purports to address so-called inconsistency in custodial rulings by establishing a clear, fairstarting point. Rather than parents making the case envisioned by the best-interest factors--proving that they have the child's interests at heart, that they will participate in child-centered co-parenting,
and that a particular schedule would be good or bad for the child--one parent has to DISPROVE the presumption, as if the law has already "made up its mind" ... which of course, it has.
The proponents call HB 1499 a "children's rights bill." This bill is on its face, gender-neutral. But the literature and the advocacy both tell us that it is a fathers'rights bill in disguise. And I don't mean to highlight this as a bad thing. Generally speaking, should fathers have more time? Mostly. The evolving context and changing roles where fathers are seeking to be more involved in their children's lives, is one with which we can all be comfortable. Have custody courts been historically biased in favor of mothers? Well, they sure used to be; query whether that is still true. The statute explicitly BARS custodial presumptions. I'd push back on the notion that judges "always favor mothers", and I believe a fair majority of practitioners would agree. Certainly, family economics and societal norms are way more diverse than they have ever been - making one or other outcome far less dominant.
We should also be candid that family strife - family violence, trauma history, economic disparity -complicates many custody cases. That stuff is often hard to prove, to bring "into the courtroom".
Who suffers then? The CHILD rarely has any voice or power in those tussles.
The law should remain focused on keeping the child as the center of attention and at the center of the analysis. HB 1499 fails to do so.
Frank P. Cervone is an attorney specializing in child advocacy. This op-ed column is excerpted from his previous testimony to the state House Judiciary Committee.