New legislation is introduced to give both parents quality time with the child in custody arrangements

February 15, 2025 – MONTGOMERY, AL – New legislation has been introduced before the Alabama Legislature that would ensure that judges in Alabama domestic relations cases consider that having a relationship with both of their biological parents (in most circumstances) is in the best interests of the child in custodial cases.

House Bill 229 - The Best Interest of the Child Protection Act 2025 - is sponsored by State Representative Kenneth Paschal (R-Pelham).

Sponsors say that the Best Interest of the Child Protection Act, if passed into law, would bring significant benefits to the legal community by providing a comprehensive and organized framework for child protection laws.

In 2008, the Alabama Legislature established the Family Law Task Force (HJR30) to review and update outdated family laws. The task force was assigned the responsibility of recommending ways to modernize Alabama's laws to better meet the needs of families and children. The recommendations of the task force were ignored due to political blowback from politically active judges and 16 years later, the law regarding child custody remains unchanged.

Under existing law there is no uniform statewide custody and visitation guidelines to protect our children's rights to be raised by both their parents. Alabama gives domestic relations judges far more judicial discretion than in most states. The current code allows family law judges to do virtually anything that they want to do. Some of these elected judges tend towards joint custody arrangements when both parents are capable; but not all. In some courts, mothers fare far better than fathers and some Alabama judges are just the opposite. If you go into an Alabama court room there is no guarantee that you will ever have a meaningful relationship with your child ever again. Virtually anything is possible in an Alabama court room.

The state does not require family law judges to document their decision-making process when considering and rejecting joint custody, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.

The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) reports that children with limited or no contact with one of their biological parents account for:

• 63% of youth suicides

• 71% of all substance abusers

• 85% of all youths in prison

• 70% of school dropouts

• Approximately 70% of teenage pregnancies

HB229 would define frequent and substantial contact to mean that the child has equal or approximately equal time with both parents. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child and establish uniform guidelines for a court to consider when determining any custody arrangement other consider when determining any custody arrangement other than joint custody.

Existing law does not require a court to document that the court considered and rejected joint custody and the reasons for the rejection. HB229 would require a court to document its reasons for deviating from the presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child.

Existing law requires the parties in a child custody matter to submit a parenting plan only in cases where the parties request joint custody. HB229 would require the parties to submit a parenting plan in all cases, and in the case of a contested divorce, follow a joint custody model; if a parent believes joint custody is not in the best interest of his or her child whose custody is at issue, he or she may file a motion for temporary relief.

This bill would require the courts to expedite a motion for temporary relief and provide certain penalties if a motion for temporary relief is filed in bad faith or without factual support. This bill would authorize the court to establish a parenting plan when the parties are unable to agree upon one. This bill would specify additional remedies to a party when a parent, without proper cause, fails to adhere to the time-sharing schedule in a parenting plan, including makeup parenting time and reimbursement for costs and attorney fees.

This legislation has been referred to the Alabama House Judiciary Committee and could be considered as early as Wednesday.

To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com