Where I Stand on Shared Parenting

In 2025, Sen. Tom Pischke's SB 172 passed the South Dakota Senate twenty to thirteen. It went to the House, and on March 10, 2025, after being reconsidered, it failed by a single vote. Thirty-five yeas. Thirty-four nays.

Both of District 32's seated representatives voted no.

In 2026 Sen. Pischke's SB 224 passed the Senate twenty to fourteen, and Rep. Bobbi Andera carried HB 1067 on the House side. It came close again. It did not get over the line again.

The next session has to be the one that does, and I have been in that building for the last two of them, advocating alongside both sponsors after I finished my Juris Doctor. A family court case brought my son to Rapid City eight years ago. I followed him, bought a house here in 2018, and moved the rest of my life here for good in 2022.

What Shared Parenting actually means

A rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody for fit parents.

In plain English: when a marriage with minor children ends, the court starts from the position that both fit parents stay equally in their child's life. Mom and Dad begin equal. The court departs from that starting point only on real evidence of abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or another circumstance that endangers the child.

That is not a radical idea, and I would point out that it is already what South Dakota's own Republican Party platform says it believes. Section 8.4 reads:

"We affirm it is in the best interest of children to be raised by both mother and father."

Shared Parenting is that sentence, operationalized for the cases where a marriage ends.

The company we would be joining

Six states currently carry a strong equal Shared Parenting presumption in statute. Kentucky led the country in 2017 and 2018. Arkansas joined in 2021, West Virginia in 2022, Florida and Missouri in 2023. Mississippi passed HB 1662 in 2026, effective for orders entered after July 1, 2026.

Finish the work in 2027 and South Dakota is the seventh.

The National Parents Organization's 2019 South Dakota report card put public support for a rebuttable presumption at 84 percent. This position is not controversial with the people it would affect. It is controversial with the system that does well under the status quo.

The piece nobody else has written

Most Shared Parenting proposals stop at fit parents begin equal. The 2027 version needs to go one step past that.

When a parent has lost parenting time, the court should provide a clear and reasonable path back. Counseling. Testing. Completed programs. Supervised steps that demonstrate fitness over time, with the child's well-being at the center of every one of them.

South Dakota can be the first state in the country to write that route into statute alongside the presumption. We do not pull parents out of their children's lives and then leave them out permanently regardless of what they do about it. We give a willing parent a road home.

What I will file in 2027

A reintroduction of Shared Parenting, carrying the path-back language.

A Right to Defense bill funding counsel for parents facing the loss of their parental rights who cannot afford an attorney. The system as it stands favors whoever has more money for lawyers, and that is a question of access rather than justice.

The remaining ten bills in the Martin Family Court Reform Stack, including mandatory case timelines, cameras in courtrooms, real consequences for false allegations, and a capstone bill anchoring due process in family court.

The questions I get on this issue come up everywhere I go, and the most common pushbacks are answered below. If yours is not there, write to zac@zac4sd.com and I will answer it personally.

Strong Families. Strong South Dakota.

Shared parenting sounds nice, but what about cases where one parent is abusive?

That is exactly why I support a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute mandate. A rebuttable presumption means the starting point is shared parenting, and the court must have specific evidence to deviate. Abuse, neglect, substance abuse, and documented danger to the child are all grounds to rebut the presumption. What shared parenting prevents is the opposite situation, where a fit parent is cut out of their child's life with no real evidence of harm.

You sound like a men's rights advocate. Isn't this anti-woman?

Fit mothers and fit fathers both benefit from shared parenting. The research shows children do better with both parents actively involved, regardless of which parent statistically tends to get primary custody under the current system. This is not a gender issue. It is a children issue and a fundamental fairness issue.

Cameras in courtrooms will discourage victims of abuse from testifying.

Genuine privacy protections will always apply to vulnerable witnesses, especially minor children and confirmed abuse victims. What public access protects against is judicial misconduct, inconsistent rulings, and the perception that family court operates by rules nobody can see. When family court decisions affect the rest of a child's life, the public has a right to see how those decisions are made.

Mandatory timelines will rush important decisions.

Family court cases currently drag on for years. Children grow up during those years. Parents lose homes, jobs, and savings during those years. Justice delayed is justice denied. Mandatory timelines force the system to prioritize the cases in front of it. Complex cases still have nine months, which is more than enough time if the court is actually working on it.

False allegations are rare. Why are you focused on that instead of real abuse?

False allegations and real abuse are both serious problems, and treating one seriously does not mean ignoring the other. Real abuse victims are best protected by a system that takes allegations seriously with real investigation. When there are no consequences for false allegations, the system is flooded with claims that cannot be distinguished from real ones, and that hurts real victims most of all.

Judicial accountability sounds like attacking judges. Are you politicizing the courts?

Every other branch of government has accountability mechanisms. Voters choose legislators. Executives answer to the public. Courts are supposed to be guided by law and precedent, not judicial whim. When a judge has enormous discretion over the most personal and painful decisions families can face, the public has a right to expect accountability, transparency, and consistency.

You have personal history with family court. Isn't this just grievance politics?

I learned about this system the hard way, and I will not pretend I did not. But grievance would be running for office to settle scores. I am running because what happened in my life happens to thousands of South Dakota families every year, and I refuse to pretend it is fine. Personal experience is how most people become the experts they are.

Mandatory paternity tests sound invasive. Why require them for everyone?

Mandatory paternity testing protects everyone. It protects fathers who have been fraudulently put on birth certificates. It protects children who have a right to know their biological origins. It protects mothers from accusations of dishonesty. It protects the child support system from being built on false assumptions. One test at birth solves problems that can otherwise take decades and millions of dollars to untangle.

Eleven bills is too ambitious. Pick one and focus.

The current system is broken in eleven ways. Fixing one while leaving the others broken just shifts the pressure somewhere else. A comprehensive package is actually more achievable than a series of one-off bills, because each reform reinforces the others. Every single one of these bills has model legislation and national precedent behind it.

Pro-life and pro-parental rights sound like code words for controlling women.

Every word of my platform is about protecting children, protecting parents, and protecting families. Mothers are parents. Women who want their children to have present fathers are the biggest beneficiaries of shared parenting. Women who want to be the primary decision-makers for their children's health, education, and faith are the biggest beneficiaries of strong parental rights. This platform protects women.