The Problem with the 50-50 Parenting Time Presumption
The Colorado Bar Association, as well as several prominent attorneys, PREs, and CFIs testified against the bill. They argued that the bill was redundant and created a presumption of equal parenting time. Several groups argued that the bill would dissuade survivors of domestic violence from pursuing legal action against their perpetrators. Specifically, they noted that perpetrators who would otherwise be denied parenting time due to a history of abuse and violence would be able to use SB 15-129’s presumption as a bargaining tool during settlement and litigation. Critics also pointed to the fact that the Best Interests of the Child Standard (C.R.S. 14-10-124), which SB 15-129 sought to amend, took 18 months of deliberation, evaluation, and discussion in 2013. They argued that the Standard was working effectively and did not require the additional presumption of 50-50 parenting time. They also argued that the proposed bill would, in fact, increase litigation because it would allow litigants to reopen their cases for review using the new presumption.
Other groups, primarily those focused on father’s rights, testified in favor of the bill. They argued that the status quo gave mothers too much power and criticized the roles of PREs and CFIs in the evaluation process of custody matters. Proponents of the bill also argued that the bill would reduce the number of cases that are litigated, the same argument that favored the recent passage of the spousal support formula (effective January 2014).
