In sole legal custody, one parent is assigned the exclusive right to make decisions concerning the children's important life activities, such as choice of school or doctor, and authorization of medical treatment or counseling.
Industrialization separated the home and the workplace, keeping fathers away from their children in order to earn wages and provide for their family.
In this joint legal custody arrangement, the child's parents shared responsibility over discussing issues related to the child-rearing.
[11][6] A number of states have considered or passed laws that create a rebuttable legal presumption in favor of shared parenting in a custody case.
The parents jointly decide how to raise their children in matters of schooling, spirituality, social events, sports religion, medical concerns, and other important decisions.
[5] Parents may also communicate more effectively with each other,[17] and they may exhibit feelings of well-being as a result of their working together to make decisions based on their child's needs.
[11][6] For example, states such as Alabama, California, and Texas do not necessarily require joint physical custody orders to result in substantially equal parenting time, whereas states such as Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana do require joint custody orders to result in substantially equal parenting time where feasible.
[18] Courts generally have not clearly defined what "significant periods" and "frequent and continuous contact" mean, which requires parents to litigate to find out.
[27] However, due to the high cost of maintaining three households, one for each parent and one for the children, it's rarely a viable option in a custody case.
[7] Unless one of the parents is abusive, neglectful and/or mentally ill, the children tend to fare better in a joint physical custody arrangement.
[32] Children in joint physical custody arrangements are more likely to have better relationships with their families, better performance in their schools, higher levels of self-esteem, and fewer conduct and emotional issues.
[34] Some commentators believe that infants and preschoolers do not benefit from joint custody arrangements due to the importance of a consistent routine and the security of a primary attachment figure at that age.
However, a consensus report published in an American Psychological Association journal that was endorsed by experts on attachment, early child development, and divorce, has rejected that perspective.
[34] Based on scientific research, there are many advocates for joint physical custody as being in the best interest of children, with exceptions for child abuse and neglect.
These advocates include non-custodial mothers and fathers; grandparents, step-parents and other family members of non-custodial parents;[36] children's rights advocates;[37] family court reform advocates who see sole custody as a disruptive practice pitting one parent against the other;[38] mental health professionals who consider joint physical custody as the best prevention against parental alienation;[39] women who view it as a gender equality issue;[40] father's rights advocates;[41] domestic violence experts;[42] academic scientists who have conducted studies and found that children with shared parenting have better on physical health, mental health and social relationships;[32] and psychologists, therapists, politicians and others who are familiar with those studies.
When Australia implemented its shared parenting law, child custody litigation dropped by 72%, and there is fear that the same could happen in the United States.