Decades of widely accepted research affirms that meaningful involvement from both parents gives the best outcomes for children of divorced or separated parents. Despite these studies and consistent public opinion favoring co-parenting, family courts throughout the United States continue to operate based on an archaic single-custodial-parent model. This barbaric framework pits parents against each other in vicious custody battles where a judge must choose a "winning" (custodial) parent and a "losing" (non-custodial) parent. The losing parent, once a vital part of their children's lives is suddenly excluded, not as a bad or unfit parent, but simply to conform to this cruel framework. Children become the worst casualties of these traumatic battles, left to wonder why one parent has abandoned them or is no longer good enough for them.

The Co-parenting Act abandons the notion entirely that family court judges have any authority to arbitrarily grant and remove custody of children by fit and involved parents. The rights of children to the care and love of their parents is a fundamental human right that a judge may not interfere with except by due process under strict scrutiny. While the Co-parenting Act will end the wasteful custody wars, it does so with a much more effective and winnable strategy than many of the 50/50 presumptive custody bills that have been difficult to pass in state legislatures.

The single-custodial-parent model took root in America during Colonial times when children were considered assets, or property of a marriage. In the relatively rare event of a divorce at that time, such property was customarily awarded to the father. Aside from being absurdly obsolete, this custodial model is cruel, violates fundamental human rights, and with the current high rate of divorce, has created a national health crisis. The Co-parenting Act simply asserts the basic rights of children, not as mere property to be awarded in a custody battle, but as humans who depend on the love and support of both parents.

In family court, judges are granted full discretion to remove a perfectly fit and loving parent from a child's life. Far too many of these decisions are made simply to conform to the single-custodial-parent model, legally justified using the nebulous "child's best interests" standard^[1]. In these courtrooms, parents must pick each other apart so a judge can choose a "best" or custodial parent where otherwise both are equally valuable in their children's lives. Numerous cases involving similar sets of family circumstances lead to vastly different outcomes depending on which judge hears a case. Many cases are decided based on nothing more than which lawyer a judge happens to favor, influenced by campaign contributions,^[2] rapport, or even personal relationships. Combining this broad judicial discretion with federal incentives to separate parents and children, states have institutionalized separation of millions of parents from their children.

Co-parenting will finally put an end to America's barbaric custody battles where parents are pit against each other, willing to lose everything to remain involved in their children's lives. Not only are these courtroom battlegrounds unethical, gaming parents under the threat of losing their children, they rob our children of their futures and violate fundamental Constitutional rights. As an example, Kentucky has recently adopted co-parenting legislation, and as expected, has reduced these wasteful custody battles there.

While America's single-primary-parent model may have been tolerated centuries ago when children were considered mere property of their father, it is now severely flawed and outdated. Today, with a high divorce rate and an even higher rate of children born to unwed mothers, this model is nothing short of systematic violation of basic human rights. No fit and loving parent should ever be discouraged from participating in their children's lives, much less ordered from doing so.