WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1242

Revenue and taxation; sales tax; agricultural exemptions; cervidae; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Casey Murdock and 1 co-sponsor

Establishes a rebuttable presumption in ND custody cases that shared decisionmaking and residential time are in the child’s best interests, with safeguards.

Recommendation to the full committee; Do Pass Appropriations and Budget General Government Subcommittee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1242

Summary — HB 1242 (North Dakota, 69th Legislative Assembly)

Status: Enacted — Signed by the Governor 2025-05-29; effective 2025-09-01.

Sponsor(s): Representatives Frelich, Tveit, Klemin, Vetter, Rohr; Senators Mathern, Barta, Bekkedahl, Boehm, Powers, Paulson, Van Oosting.

Purpose
- Amend North Dakota Century Code sections 14-09-00.1 and 14-09-29 to revise definitions and to create a rebuttable statutory presumption favoring shared parental decisionmaking and shared residential responsibility (roughly equal parenting time) in child custody proceedings.

Key provisions
- Definitions (amends 14-09-00.1)
- Clarifies and expands defined terms used in custody law, including “decisionmaking responsibility,” “parenting plan,” “parental rights and responsibilities,” “parenting schedule,” and “residential responsibility.”
- Broadens the statutory concept of “harm” to expressly include negative health effects from excessive corporal punishment and acts defined as sex offenses under chapter 12.1‑20.

  • Rebuttable presumption for shared parenting (amends 14-09-29)

    • Establishes a presumption that shared decisionmaking responsibility and shared residential responsibility are in the child’s best interests in residential-responsibility proceedings (including interim proceedings), unless the presumption is rebutted or an exception applies.
    • If the presumption applies and is not rebutted, the court must award each parent shared decisionmaking responsibility and construct a parenting schedule providing each parent equal or approximately equal residential responsibility (practical scheduling to ensure the child’s welfare). Courts may consider factors listed in section 14-09-06.2 when creating schedules.

  • Grounds to rebut the presumption

    • The presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence showing that shared decisionmaking/residential responsibility:
    • May cause harm to the child;
    • May endanger the child’s physical or emotional health; or
    • Is not feasible because the parents cannot provide a parenting schedule with exchanges at least every seven days.

  • Exceptions and safety provisions

    • The presumption does not apply if there is a protective order or other court order limiting contact.
    • Where the court finds domestic violence — either a single incident causing serious bodily injury or use of a dangerous weapon, or a pattern of domestic violence proximate to the proceeding — supervised parenting time is required unless clear and convincing evidence supports unsupervised time.
    • If a parent is found to have sexually abused the child, the court must prohibit contact until the parent completes a treatment program and supervised contact may be allowed only as part of therapeutic treatment and with agreement of therapists.
    • Costs (court costs, attorneys’ fees, evaluation and expert fees) incurred in proceedings where a parent perpetrated qualifying domestic violence must generally be paid by that parent unless doing so would create undue hardship.

Who is affected
- Parents and children involved in custody (parental rights and responsibilities) proceedings in North Dakota.
- Family courts and judges (new presumptions and required findings).
- Custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, domestic violence and supervised‑visitation service providers.
- Potentially child welfare and social‑service programs that support supervised visitation and treatment services.

Procedural/timeline notes
- Enactment date: Signed 2025-05-29.
- Effective date: September 1, 2025.
- The presumption is rebuttable (preponderance standard); when rebutted, courts must make specific findings addressing best‑interest factors.

Potential impacts and considerations
- Likely to increase the number of custody orders awarding shared residential time where safety concerns are not proven.
- Requires courts to make specific findings when declining shared arrangements, which may increase litigation in contested cases and require more judicial fact‑finding.
- Safety exceptions preserve the court’s ability to limit or supervise contact for domestic violence or sexual abuse, and shift certain costs to perpetrators of qualifying domestic violence.
- Implementation may increase demand for supervised visitation centers, therapeutic services, and court‑appointed evaluations in cases alleging abuse or where the presumption is rebutted.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.