Proposed Reform

The Family Continuity Act

Vermont Kids Connected is developing legislation to modernize Vermont family law and better protect children’s safety, stability, and important family relationships.

The proposed Family Continuity Act would give courts clearer authority and standards for preserving children’s relationships with parents, grandparents, siblings, and extended family members—while maintaining strong protections where abuse, serious harm, or other safety concerns are present.

The current draft remains under review and may change through consultation with families, professionals, lawmakers, and legislative counsel. 

What the Proposal Would Do

1. Allow Courts to Order Shared Parenting

Under current Vermont law, courts cannot order shared parental rights and responsibilities unless both parents agree.

The proposal would remove that restriction and allow a court to order shared legal or physical responsibility when the evidence shows that sharing is safe and serves the child.

One parent’s refusal would no longer automatically prevent the court from preserving an established shared-parenting arrangement.

2. Create a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting

The proposal would establish a starting presumption that:

  • shared physical responsibility;
  • substantially equal parent-child contact; and
  • shared legal responsibility

are ordinarily in the child’s best interests.

A presumption is not an automatic result. It determines where the court begins its analysis.

A court could order a different arrangement when the evidence shows that shared parenting would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be adequately addressed through a narrower or less restrictive order.

3. Require Evidence and Specific Findings

A court departing from shared parenting would have to explain its decision through specific written findings.

The court would identify:

  • the facts supporting its decision;
  • the nature of the risk to the child;
  • the less restrictive alternatives considered; and
  • why those alternatives would not adequately protect the child.

This would make major restrictions more transparent, more consistent, and easier to review.

4. Prevent Conflict From Becoming an Automatic Veto

Parental disagreement would remain relevant, but conflict alone would not automatically defeat shared parenting.

The proposal would direct courts not to reject shared responsibility primarily because the parents:

  • disagree;
  • communicate poorly;
  • have difficulty cooperating;
  • use different parenting practices; or
  • object to sharing responsibility.

Courts would also consider whether the parent relying on conflict helped create or prolong it.

The goal is not to ignore serious conflict. It is to prevent strategic noncooperation from determining the child’s future.

5. Use Less Restrictive Solutions Where Possible

When parents cannot jointly make every decision, the court would not have to choose between complete sharing and complete control by one parent.

Possible alternatives could include:

  • structured communication procedures;
  • required consultation;
  • tie-breaking rules;
  • final authority over a limited issue after good-faith consultation;
  • mediation procedures; or
  • other narrowly tailored arrangements.

These tools would allow courts to preserve parental involvement to the greatest extent consistent with the child’s welfare.

6. Modernize the Best-Interest Factors

The proposal would update the factors courts use when deciding parental rights and responsibilities.

The revised factors would give clearer attention to:

  • the child’s actual caregiving history;
  • stability and continuity;
  • the likely effect of relocation;
  • each parent’s support for the child’s relationship with the other parent;
  • interference with contact or information;
  • relationships with siblings, grandparents, and extended family;
  • information-sharing and participation in the child’s life;
  • abuse and serious safety risks; and
  • any other factor directly affecting the child’s safety and development.

The proposal would replace a narrow focus on identifying a single “primary caregiver” with a fuller examination of how each parent has actually cared for the child.

7. Prevent a Manufactured Status Quo From Controlling the Case

Temporary arrangements can become entrenched during lengthy litigation.

The proposal would direct courts not to give undue weight to a status quo created or prolonged through:

  • unilateral action;
  • bad faith;
  • litigation delay;
  • violation of an agreement or court order; or
  • an order later reversed, vacated, or materially changed.

A parent should not gain a permanent advantage by first excluding the other parent and then arguing that the resulting arrangement should remain unchanged.

8. Require Clear Parenting Plans

Vermont courts already require parents who agree to share parental rights and responsibilities to submit a detailed parenting plan using Judiciary Form 400-00825.

The proposal would extend that same basic planning discipline to all custody orders, including contested cases. It draws on subjects already addressed in the court’s form—such as legal and physical responsibility, regular schedules, holidays, transportation, communication, information-sharing, relocation, and dispute resolution—while adding clearer protections against avoidable gaps and recurring scheduling conflicts.

Every order would address:

  • the regular weekly schedule;
  • holidays, vacations, school breaks, and closures;
  • transportation and exchanges;
  • telephone and video contact;
  • parent-to-parent communication;
  • school, medical, and activity information;
  • attendance at the child’s events;
  • travel and relocation notice;
  • make-up parenting time;
  • dispute-resolution procedures; and
  • the child’s relationships with siblings and extended family.

Parents who reach agreement are already expected to resolve these practical issues. Children in contested cases deserve parenting orders that are at least as clear and complete.

9. Protect Parenting Time From Calendar Problems

The proposal would require parenting plans to account for circumstances that can unintentionally reduce a parent’s contact, including:

  • holidays;
  • school breaks;
  • teacher in-service days;
  • school closures;
  • fifth weekends;
  • travel; and
  • other calendar irregularities.

Unless the parents agree or the court finds good cause, a parenting plan generally would not create a gap of more than 14 consecutive nights without overnight contact between a child and either parent.

The plan would also include a method for adjusting the schedule or providing make-up contact when necessary.

10. Improve Information Sharing

Unless the court finds good cause to order otherwise, each parent would be entitled to timely and complete information concerning the child’s:

  • health;
  • education;
  • activities;
  • schedule; and
  • general welfare.

The proposal would also protect each parent’s ability to attend the child’s school, extracurricular, athletic, and other scheduled events.

This reflects the principle that parental involvement requires access to information—not merely scheduled contact.

11. Protect Children’s Relationships With Grandparents After a Parent Dies

The proposal would also update Vermont’s grandparent-visitation law.

Courts would continue to give special weight to the decision of a fit parent. Grandparents would not receive automatic access.

But courts would expressly consider:

  • the nature and duration of the grandparent-child relationship;
  • whether the relationship was restricted or ended;
  • the reasons supported by the record for denying access;
  • the effect on the child of losing the relationship;
  • the child’s family identity, continuity, and sense of belonging;
  • the child’s connection to the family of a deceased or unavailable parent; and
  • whether a limited order could preserve the relationship without unnecessarily interfering with parental authority.

An order over a fit parent’s objection would have to be supported by evidence that it is necessary to prevent significant harm to the child and would have to be narrowly tailored. 

What the Proposal Would Not Do

The Family Continuity Act would not:

  • require identical schedules in every family;
  • guarantee 50/50 parenting time regardless of circumstances;
  • force shared parenting where it would create a serious risk of harm;
  • diminish protections involving abuse or safety;
  • give grandparents automatic visitation;
  • allow judges to disregard the constitutional authority of fit parents; or
  • prevent courts from tailoring orders to the needs of an individual child.

The proposal creates stronger starting principles and clearer standards—not inflexible outcomes.

Why These Changes Matter

Family-law decisions can reshape a child’s life for years.

Current law can allow disagreement, delay, or unilateral action to become more important than the child’s actual history and relationships. It can also leave courts without adequate tools to preserve shared parenting or family continuity.

The proposed reforms would place the focus where it belongs:

  • the child’s safety;
  • the child’s established relationships;
  • the child’s caregiving history;
  • the child’s stability and development; and
  • the long-term consequences of restricting important family connections.

A Draft for Discussion

This proposal is still being refined.

We welcome thoughtful input from families, attorneys, mediators, mental-health professionals, child-development experts, researchers, educators, and policymakers.

Read the current draft →