Missouri 50/50 custody law: the equal parenting-time presumption explained (2026)

Missouri does have a statutory presumption of equal parenting time, and a circuit court judge still decides every case. Since 28 August 2023 the custody statute, RSMo § 452.375.2, has read: “There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an award of equal or approximately equal parenting time to each parent is in the best interests of the child.” The word carrying the weight is rebuttable — the presumption is where a court starts, not where every case ends.

The statute also fixes how hard it is to move: “rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence in accordance with all relevant factors”, including the eight factors listed in the same subsection. That is not a clear-and-convincing standard. Custody is decided by the circuit court, with appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

What Missouri law actually says

Custody in Missouri is decided under RSMo § 452.375, inside Chapter 452 of Title XXX — the chapter on dissolution of marriage, divorce, alimony and separate maintenance — which still opens with the rule that “the court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child”.

The presumption was added by Senate Substitute for Senate Bill No. 35 (2023) and took effect on 28 August 2023: the sentence is absent from the version of § 452.375 effective 28 August 2021 and present from 28 August 2023. One later amendment, on 28 August 2024, came in an education act and left the presumption alone.

Three things the presumption did not change:

• The custody labels stayed as they were. “Joint physical custody” still means an order awarding each parent “significant, but not necessarily equal, periods of time”. The presumption is about parenting time; the label is not. Joint legal custody is separate again: the parents share “the decision-making rights, responsibilities, and authority relating to the health, education and welfare of the child”, and confer unless the decree allocates particular decisions.
• The policy statement stayed. Subsection 4 still declares that “frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with both parents” after separation is in the child’s best interest, except where the court specifically finds otherwise.
• No standard plan may be imposed. “No court shall adopt any local rule, form, or practice requiring a standardized or default parenting plan.”

Sources: [1], [2]

How a Missouri court decides

The statute sets the order of reasoning.

1. Custody is determined by the best interests of the child.
2. It starts from the presumption of equal or approximately equal parenting time, which yields only to a preponderance of the evidence weighed against all relevant factors, “including, but not limited to” the eight listed ones. The statute names two grounds for rebutting it: an agreement on all custody issues, or a pattern of domestic violence.
3. It works through five options in statutory order, beginning with joint physical and joint legal custody, which “shall not be denied solely for the reason that one parent opposes” it; four further options follow, ending with third-party custody.
4. Where the parents have not agreed on all custody issues, the court “shall consider all relevant factors and enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law”, addressing the subsection 4 public policy and each of the eight factors; rejecting a plan a parent proposed needs its own written reasons.
5. Every custody judgment contains a specific written parenting plan.

The eight factors: the parents’ wishes and proposed plans; the child’s need for a frequent, continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents; interaction with parents, siblings and others; which parent is likelier to allow contact with the other; adjustment to home, school and community; health, including any history of abuse; a parent’s intention to relocate the child; and “the unobstructed input of a child, free of coercion and manipulation”, which the 2023 act substituted for the child’s “wishes”.

One appellate decision applies it head-on. In Campbell v. Campbell, No. WD87402 (Western District, 27 May 2025), the court affirmed sole legal and sole physical custody to one parent because “the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to rebut the presumption that equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the best interests of the Children”. It is one panel decision on its own facts, not a ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

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

What it means for a schedule and for child support

“Equal or approximately equal parenting time” describes arithmetic, not one particular rota, and because no court may require a standardized plan, the pattern is the one the parents proposed or the court wrote. Alternating weeks, a 2-2-3 rotation and other splits all land at or near half the nights; the real questions are handover days and holidays. See 50/50 custody schedules, alternating weeks and what a parenting plan covers.

On child support the statute answers directly: “An award of joint custody does not preclude an award of child support pursuant to section 452.340 and applicable supreme court rules.” The amount comes from Civil Procedure Form No. 14, and Line 11 is the “adjustment for … amounts expended by the parent obligated to pay support during periods of overnight visitation or custody”, as a percentage of the basic amount.

The directions set that percentage from an 18-band table keyed to overnights: nothing below 36, 6 % from 36 to 72, then upwards in steps to 34 % in the top band of 181–183 overnights. It counts overnights “awarded to and exercised by” the paying parent, so a schedule on paper that is not followed does not count. The cap is deliberate: the directions say “the maximum adjustment divided equally equals 34 %”. A court that finds the ordinary rules unjust and inappropriate may go above 34 % and up to 50 %, but the table itself stops at 34 %.

No official Missouri figure for the share of judgments awarding equal or approximately equal parenting time appears in the sources checked here, so this page quotes none. For the national picture, see the United States custody-law page.

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

The words Missouri uses

• Joint legal custody — the parents share decision-making over health, education and welfare, and confer unless the decree says who decides what.
• Joint physical custody — an order giving each parent “significant, but not necessarily equal, periods of time”. The label alone does not mean half the nights.
• Parenting time — the term the presumption uses, and the one about days and nights. Parents say “50/50” or “week on, week off”.
• Visitation — still the statutory word for the time of a parent without physical custody; it runs through § 452.375 and Form 14.
• Parenting plan — the written schedule and decision-making document every custody judgment must contain, with the contents the statute lists.

Sources: [1], [2]

Recent changes in Missouri

• 2026-05 Introduced, not enacted

  SB 1371: “equal or substantially equal”

  SB 1371 (Brattin) would have replaced “equal or approximately equal” parenting time with “equal or substantially equal”, in the presumption and in the definition of joint physical custody. Last recorded status: second read and referred to a Senate committee. Nothing changed for parents; the statute still reads “approximately”.

  Official source: Missouri Senate, SB 1371 (2026)

• 2026-05 Introduced, not enacted

  HBs 2505 & 2044: fourteen factors instead of eight

  SCS HCS HBs 2505 & 2044 (Coleman) would have expanded the best-interests list from eight factors to fourteen and rewritten the subsection 4 public-policy statement. Last recorded status: the House informal calendar for third reading.

  Official source: Missouri Senate, SCS HCS HBs 2505 & 2044 (2026)

• 2026-05 Introduced, not enacted

  SB 1468: a stability and continuity factor

  SB 1468 (Burger) would have added “the child’s need for stability, continuity of care, and a consistent routine” to § 452.375. Last recorded status: a Senate committee substitute voted do pass.

  Official source: Missouri Senate, SB 1468 (2026)

• 1 January 2026 In force

  New Form 14, same overnight table

  A new Civil Procedure Form No. 14, new directions and an updated Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations took effect, by order of the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc dated 4 March 2025. The Line 11 overnight adjustment came through unchanged: the same 18 bands, the same 34 % cap.

  Official source: Supreme Court of Missouri order, 4 March 2025

• 28 August 2024 In force

  S.B. 727 touched the section, not shared parenting

  S.B. 727, an education act, extended the existing home-school wording inside factor (5) to “family paced education” schools. The presumption and the other factors were untouched, and the section’s version history ends here.

  Official source: Revisor of Statutes, RSMo § 452.375

• 28 August 2023 In force

  SS SB 35 created the equal parenting-time presumption

  The act added the rebuttable presumption that equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interests, rebuttable only by a preponderance of the evidence; reworded factor (8) from the child’s “wishes” to the child’s “unobstructed input … free of coercion and manipulation”; required written findings where the parents have not agreed; and rewrote § 454.1005 to require written findings, on ability to pay and on why the obligor needs the licence, before one is suspended over child-support arrears.

  Official source: Enrolled Senate Substitute for SB 35 (2023)

Frequently asked questions

Sources