Relating to orders providing for the conservatorship of or possession of and access to a child by the child's parents in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
By enacting SB1702, Texas law will reflect a more structured approach to parenting arrangements post-separation or divorce, fostering assumptions in favor of equal parenting. This will effectively change how courts handle custody arrangements by creating a rebuttable presumption for equal parenting, unless it can be demonstrated that such arrangements violate the child’s best interests or are unworkable due to specific circumstances. Moreover, the bill includes stipulations that the standard possession order may still apply if equal parenting is deemed inappropriate, ensuring that the child's welfare remains paramount in custody decisions.
Senate Bill 1702 introduces significant revisions to the Texas Family Code, specifically focused on establishing equal parenting orders for parents in joint managing conservatorships. The bill aims to mandate that, in cases where both parents are appointed as joint managing conservators, they should have equal or nearly equal periods of physical possession and access to their children. This legislative change is rooted in the public policy objective to enhance children's contact with both parents, thereby encouraging balanced involvement in their upbringing. The provisions outlined in this bill are set to take effect on September 1, 2023.
The reception of SB1702 has been generally supportive among advocates who believe in the importance of equal parenting. Proponents argue that the bill empowers both parents and supports the notion that children benefit from the active involvement of both parents in their lives. Nevertheless, there is a counter sentiment voiced by some family law experts and advocacy groups who worry about the practical implications of enforcing equal parenting arrangements, especially in situations involving safety concerns, substance abuse, or cases of domestic violence. They argue that a blanket policy could overlook unique family dynamics and the nuances necessary in custody decisions.
A notable point of contention surrounding SB1702 revolves around the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting. Critics express concerns that the bill might introduce rigidity into custody decisions where flexibility is often required to address individual family circumstances, particularly in cases where one parent may present a risk to the child. Furthermore, the stipulation that courts would need to provide written findings to limit parental rights could potentially create disputes about what constitutes the best interests of the child in varied situations. Opponents argue that this requirement might complicate legal proceedings and influence outcomes that should be tailored to the specifics of each case.