Door 3 · The map
Where is 50/50 custody the starting point?
In a small number of states, the law starts at equal time and the parent asking for something else carries the burden. Everywhere else, the court starts from its best-interest factors with no starting split. This map prints each state's actual status — including the near-miss and the bills that never became law.
The honest national breakdown: 6 classic rebuttable-presumption states (Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Mississippi) plus Louisiana's shall-share-equally rule — its own category, because the Louisiana act never uses the word “presumption.” Arizona is not a presumption state: its law states a policy of substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing time with both parents and a duty to maximise each parent's time — no presumption, and no burden of proof.
| State | Status | Citation | Burden | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kentucky | Equal-time presumption | KRS 403.270(2) | Preponderance | Presumes joint custody + equally shared parenting time; no application to a parent subject to a domestic-violence order (KRS 403.315) |
| Arkansas | Equal-time presumption | Ark. Code §9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv) | Clear and convincing | Original determinations only; change of law alone is not a material change for modification |
| West Virginia | Equal-time presumption | W. Va. Code §48-9-102a; §48-9-206(a) | Preponderance | Equal (50-50) custodial allocation unless agreed otherwise or harmful to the child / §48-9-209(f) factors apply |
| Florida | Equal-time presumption | Fla. Stat. §61.13(2)(c) | Preponderance | Time-sharing only; not retroactive |
| Missouri | Equal-time presumption | Mo. Rev. Stat. §452.375.9 | Preponderance | Parenting time only - not legal custody |
| Mississippi | Equal-time presumption | Miss. Code §93-5-24(2)(a) (as amended) | Preponderance | NEW - HB 1662. Initial-orders-only limit is secondary-source only and unconfirmed; do not print it |
| Louisiana | Shall share equally (its own category) | La. Rev. Stat. §9:335(A)(2)(b) (as amended) | None stated - court determines equal sharing is not feasible or not in the child's best interest | NEW variant - Act 605 / HB 1239. Applies where joint custody is ordered; the act never uses the word 'presumption'; its own category, not a seventh identical presumption |
| Arizona | No equal-time presumption | A.R.S. §25-103(B); §25-403.02(B); Smith v. Smith, 253 Ariz. 43 (App. 2022) | — | Documented near-miss: public policy + maximise-each-parent's-time duty; equal time is a starting point for analysis only |
| Texas | Joint managing conservatorship only | Tex. Fam. Code §153.131 | Rebuttable; removed by a finding of a history of family violence | Joint managing conservatorship (decision-making) only - not equal possession |
| California | Joint custody only when both parents agree | Cal. Fam. Code §3080 | — | Joint custody presumed in the child's best interest only when both parents agree |
| New York | No equal-time presumption | N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law §70; §240(1) | — | No presumption for equal time or joint custody; case-law-driven |
| Illinois | No equal-time presumption | 750 ILCS 5/602.5; 750 ILCS 5/602.7 | — | No presumption in favour of either parent; factor-driven allocation |
| Ohio | No equal-time presumption | Ohio Rev. Code §3109.04 | — | No equal-time presumption in current text; bills debated, none enacted as of 2026-10-27 |
| Oklahoma | No equal-time presumption | Oklahoma HB 1082 | — | Passed the House 2025, Senate committee 2026, never passed the full Senate |
| Wyoming | No equal-time presumption | Wyoming SF0117 | — | Died in committee 2025 |
| All other states | No equal-time presumption | — | — | Sizing §2c: the other ~43 states are factor-only - the court applies its best-interest factors (statutory or case-law) with no starting split. Not individually mapped in the sizing; no per-state rows invented here. |
Rules checked October 2026. Oklahoma HB 1082 and Wyoming SF0117 never became law and are printed as not enacted.