Arkansas 50/50 custody law: the joint-custody presumption explained (2026)

Yes — Arkansas law presumes that joint custody is in a child's best interests, and because the statute defines joint custody as an approximately equal division of time, that presumption is about the calendar and not only the label. The judge who applies it sits in the Arkansas circuit court. Two limits matter as much as the headline: the presumption engages only in an original custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter, and the evidentiary route to defeating it is clear and convincing evidence.

Three of the four ways the presumption falls away are not about evidence at all — the parties agreeing on every custody issue, one party not asking for sole, primary or joint custody, or a domestic-abuse or sex-offender presumption being established. And if the court does depart from joint custody, it must write down its facts, findings and conclusions of law and set a parenting-time schedule that maximises each parent's time with the child.

What Arkansas law actually says

Arkansas's custody statute is Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101. The presumption was added by Act 604 of 2021 — Senate Bill 18, approved on 7 April 2021 — and the Act's own words read: “In an action concerning an original child custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter, there is a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child.”

That sentence carries a gateway. The presumption engages in an original determination, in a divorce or paternity matter — not in every custody dispute, and not when a parent asks to change an existing order. Act 604 also hardened the court's duty from permissive to mandatory: where the earlier text said the circuit court may consider awarding joint custody, it now says shall.

What joint custody means is itself statutory. Section 9-13-101(a)(5) defines it as “the approximate and reasonable equal division of time with the child by both parents individually as agreed to by the parents or as ordered by the court”, wording created by Act 1156 of 2013. The definition is about time, and the word approximate means the statute is not asking for an exact half.

Rebutting the presumption on the evidence takes clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the child's best interest. Where it is rebutted, the court must enter a written order containing its facts, findings and conclusions of law, with a parenting-time schedule that maximises the amount of time each parent has with the child. A parent granted neither sole, primary nor joint custody is entitled to reasonable parenting time unless the court finds, after a hearing, that it would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental or emotional health.

Once joint custody is in a court order, the Arkansas Supreme Court held in Heileman v. Cahoon, 2024 Ark. 164, that absent the parties' agreement the only way to move away from it is to prove both a material change in circumstances and that the modification is in the child's best interest.

Sources: [1], [2], [4]

How an Arkansas court works through it

The first question is not about the children at all: it is whether the presumption applies. It does in an original custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter. Inside that gateway the circuit court shall consider awarding joint custody, starting from an approximately equal division of time.

Four things can switch the presumption off, and only one of them is evidentiary. The court may find by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the child's best interest; the parties may agree on all custody issues; one party may simply not request sole, primary or joint custody; or one of two separate presumptions may be established. Under § 9-13-101(c)(2) there is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in a child's best interest to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent, where a pattern of domestic abuse is found on a preponderance of the evidence. Under § 9-13-101(d)(2) there is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in a child's best interest to be placed in the care or custody of a sex offender, or to have unsupervised visitation with one.

Beyond that, the statute tells the court to consider the best interest of the child, but it does not supply a numbered list of best-interest factors — in Arkansas those come from case law rather than from § 9-13-101. The statute does deal squarely with conflict: the circuit court may enter an order to reduce areas of conflict, and where it finds on a preponderance of the evidence that one parent shows a pattern of willfully creating conflict to disrupt a joint-custody arrangement and cannot reduce it by order, that pattern can be a material change of circumstances costing that parent joint custody. Custody itself is decided by the Arkansas circuit court.

Sources: [1], [2], [6], [7]

What equal time looks like, and what it does to support

“Approximate and reasonable” leaves room for several rhythms: alternating weeks, a 2-2-3 rotation and a 2-2-5-5 pattern all reach a roughly equal year from very different weeks. Our guide to 50/50 custody schedules sets them side by side, worked schedule examples show how each falls across a month, and the custody schedule planner turns a pattern into dated days.

Child support runs on the Arkansas Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. 10, an Income Shares model revised by per curiam on 6 October 2022 and used for all support orders entered after that date. Those guidelines are built on an assumption worth knowing: they assume the paying parent has the child overnight in his or her residence fewer than 141 overnights a calendar year.

So a roughly equal calendar changes the arithmetic rather than removing it. Where the parties share approximately equal time, the guidelines apply a shared custody adjustment: each obligation is calculated and the smaller is deducted from the larger, which means the higher earner still pays the difference. Where time is unequal but each parent has at least 141 overnights a year, an adjustment becomes discretionary — the court may treat the paying parent's time as a basis for adjusting the worksheet amount. Above 141 overnights the guidelines state an intent that the court deviate on a case-by-case basis, and the amount is left to the court: there is no percentage table.

How often Arkansas orders actually land on joint custody is not something we can source: the Arkansas Judiciary's statistics site was unreachable when this page was checked, so this page gives no figure. Our custody statistics page collects the national data that exists.

Sources: [2], [3]

Arkansas terms you will meet in an order

• Joint custody — the statutory term, defined as the approximate and reasonable equal division of time with the child by both parents, as agreed by the parents or ordered by the court.
• Sole, primary or joint custody — the three labels the statute itself uses for what a parent may be granted.
• Parenting time — the term Act 604 put in place of “visitation” for the time of a parent who is granted neither sole, primary nor joint custody.
• Material change of circumstances — what a parent must prove, with the child's best interest, to move away from an order of joint custody; a willful-conflict pattern can be one.
• Shared custody adjustment — the heading in Administrative Order No. 10 that covers both the equal-time offset and the 141-overnight discretionary adjustment.
• Overnight, and overnight equivalent — support is counted in overnights, with “overnight equivalents” allowed for significant daytime care on separate days. Arkansas counts overnights, not hours.

Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Recent changes in Arkansas

• 5 May 2025 Died in the House at sine die adjournment

  HB 1434 would have changed the presumption in domestic-abuse cases

  House Bill 1434 of the 2025 Regular Session was headed “to amend the law regarding the presumption that an award of joint custody between parents is in a child's best interest when there is domestic abuse”, targeting § 9-13-101(c). It was amended four times and reported out of House Judiciary with a recommendation to pass as amended on 13 March 2025, then died in the House at sine die adjournment. The presumption is unchanged.

  Official source: HB 1434 (2025 Regular Session) official bill page

• 31 October 2024 Supreme Court ruling

  Heileman v. Cahoon: moving away from joint custody needs a material change

  In Heileman v. Cahoon, 2024 Ark. 164 (No. CV-22-495), the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and held that once an award of joint custody has been reduced to a court order, the only way to modify away from joint custody — absent the parties' agreement — is by proving both a material change in circumstances and that the modification is in the child's best interest.

  Official source: Heileman v. Cahoon, 2024 Ark. 164 (Arkansas Judiciary)

• 7 February 2024 Court of Appeals opinion — since vacated

  The Court of Appeals opinion in the same case is no longer authority

  The Court of Appeals had decided the same case as 2024 Ark. App. 72 on 7 February 2024. The Supreme Court's disposition on 31 October 2024 vacated that opinion, so it is no longer authority and should not be relied on as a statement of Arkansas law. It is listed here only so that the vacatur is visible to anyone who finds the earlier opinion.

  Official source: 2024 Ark. App. 72 (vacated), Arkansas Judiciary

Arkansas joint custody: common questions

Sources