Source: National Parents Organization — 2025 Shared Parenting Report Card (Appendix B, released April 2025). Grades reflect the strength of each state's custody statutes in promoting equal shared parenting. This grades legislation — not individual court outcomes. A higher grade means stronger statutory tools for fathers seeking equal custody.
What This Grade Means
The NPO 2025 Shared Parenting Report Card grades each state's child custody statutes on whether they promote equal shared parenting — defined as at least one-third of parenting time for each parent. A higher grade means the state's laws give non-custodial parents (typically fathers) a stronger statutory foundation to fight for equal custody. This report grades statutes, not courts — a state with a strong statute may still have local judges who undercut it, and vice versa.
A-grade states have enacted explicit rebuttable presumptions that equal shared parenting is in the child's best interest: Arizona (A+), West Virginia (A+), Florida (A), Kentucky (A), Missouri (A), Arkansas (A−). These are the strongest in the country. Courts must justify in writing any deviation from equal parenting.
D and F grade states have little or no statutory support for shared parenting. New York has zero statutory recognition of shared parenting — all case law only. Rhode Island has not introduced a single qualifying shared parenting bill since 2014. In these states the system has no legislative backstop for the non-custodial parent.
Important caveat: These grades measure statutes, not outcomes. Nationally, mothers receive physical custody in approximately 65–80% of cases even in A-grade states. The grade tells you what legal arguments your attorney can make — not what the judge will decide.
All 50 states + DC graded A+ through F directly from NPO 2025 Appendix B. Green = strong shared parenting laws. Red/dark = weak or no statutory framework. Average grade improved from D+ (2014) to C (2025) driven by legislative wins in KY, AR, WV, FL, and MO.
| Grade | States | What It Means in Practice |
|---|---|---|
| A+ | Arizona, West Virginia | Strongest in the country. Courts must maximize each parent's time. Research shows AZ courts interpret this as implicit 50/50 presumption. WV has explicit 50/50 rebuttable presumption for both temporary and permanent orders. |
| A | Florida, Kentucky, Missouri | Explicit rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting enacted into statute. Courts must provide written justification for any deviation. |
| A− | Arkansas | Rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child, with joint custody defined as "approximate and reasonable equal division of time." |
| B+ | District of Columbia | Rebuttable assumption of joint custody; strong deference to parental agreement. Statute clearly distinguishes legal from physical custody. |
| B | Iowa, Nevada | Strong presumption of joint legal custody; preference for joint physical custody when a parent demonstrates intent to establish meaningful relationship. |
| B− | Louisiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin | Joint custody presumptions or preferences in statute; meaningful parenting time provisions; some gaps in temporary orders or physical custody standards. |
| C+ | Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico | Presumption of joint legal custody; equal parenting time explicitly permitted; gaps in definition or enforcement of physical custody equality. |
| C | Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Washington | Policy statements encouraging shared parenting; friendly parent factor required; no statutory presumption of equal physical custody. |
| C− | Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia | Minimal statutory language; broad judicial discretion; weak shared parenting policy statements with explicit denial of presumption. |
| D+ | New Jersey, Oklahoma | Policy statement only; statute explicitly denies any presumption for or against joint custody — giving courts unconstrained discretion. |
| D | California, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wyoming | Little or no shared parenting language; no policy, preference, or presumption. CA explicitly denies any custody presumption. |
| D− | Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina | Merely permits joint custody; no policy, preference, or presumption in favor of it. No friendly parent requirement in most. |
| F | New York, Rhode Island | Zero statutory framework for shared parenting. No shared parenting bills enacted since 2014. All custody decisions based on case law only — far easier for judges to override than statute. |