The Family Continuity Act
Put children’s relationships first.
The Family Continuity Act proposal creates rebuttable presumptions favoring shared physical responsibility, substantially equal parent-child contact and shared legal responsibility—while preserving safety protections and requiring evidence-based findings when a different order is necessary.
Reform at a glance
A clear starting point with defined safeguards.
The proposal connects Vermont’s commitment to continuing family relationships with the authority and standards courts need in contested cases.
Shared responsibility and substantially equal contact
The proposal presumes shared physical responsibility and substantially equal parent-child contact are in the child’s best interests. It separately presumes shared legal responsibility is in the child’s best interests.
Evidence, specific findings and serious harm
Either presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, with specific findings of a substantial risk of serious harm that cannot be addressed by a less restrictive order.
Safety protections and child-specific orders
Courts retain existing protections and may impose restrictions necessary to address proven risks. Conflict or one parent’s objection alone does not rebut the presumptions.
Clear plans. Focused decisions. Greater stability.
Start with the real family
Consider who cared for the child and which safe relationships existed before litigation began.
Resolve only what is disputed
Record agreements, use focused solutions and let the court decide the issues parents cannot resolve.
Issue workable orders
Address schedules, exchanges, information, communication and future disagreements clearly.
The Proposal
What the proposal would change.
The custody and parenting-plan provisions below follow the current discussion draft. Open any section for the supporting explanation.
01 · Allow courts to order shared parenting
The proposal removes the parental-agreement veto and creates rebuttable presumptions in favor of shared physical responsibility, substantially equal parent-child contact and shared legal responsibility.
A court may rebut a presumption only by a preponderance of the evidence, with specific findings of a substantial risk of serious harm that cannot be addressed through a less restrictive order.
02 · Prevent disagreement from becoming an automatic veto
Conflict, lack of cooperation, communication difficulty, disagreement or one parent’s objection cannot by themselves rebut the presumptions—including conflict created by the party seeking to rebut them.
03 · Use focused solutions before excluding a parent
Courts would not be forced to choose between complete joint decision-making and complete control by one parent.
- Require meaningful consultation.
- Divide responsibility by subject.
- Use limited final authority, structured communication or a tie-breaking process.
04 · Require complete, workable parenting plans
These are not new planning categories. They correspond to what 15 V.S.A. § 666(b) already requires in a complete stipulated agreement and to the subjects covered by Vermont Judiciary Form 400-00825.
The proposal would require contested orders to provide the same practical completeness: physical living arrangements, parent-child contact, education, health care, travel, communication about the child and—when responsibility is shared or divided—a process for resolving disputes.
05 · Require evidence and clear findings
A major restriction on a parent-child relationship would have to rest on evidence and specific findings about the risk, the alternatives considered and why a less restrictive order would not be adequate.
06 · Modernize the best-interest analysis
The analysis would reflect the child’s actual relationships, each parent’s caregiving history, stability, continuity, participation, family connections and genuine safety risks—not assumptions about family roles.
07 · Prevent a manufactured status quo from controlling the case
Stability matters, but courts would examine whether a claimed status quo arose through unilateral action, interference, bad faith, violation of an agreement or order, or litigation delay.
08 · Protect access to records—and timely information
15 V.S.A. § 670 already protects access to many important records. The proposal addresses the practical gap between obtaining a record later and receiving timely notice about health care, school, activities, emergencies and material schedule changes.
09 · Protect family continuity within constitutional limits
The draft’s significant-harm standard for grandparent visitation follows the constitutional framework established in Troxel and applied by the Vermont Supreme Court. A fit parent’s decision remains entitled to special weight; grandparents do not receive automatic access.
The current working draft also addresses a grandparent’s request for continued visitation or communication in connection with a stepparent adoption by applying the same constitutional standards and requiring narrowly tailored relief.
Safety first
Existing guardrails remain available.
Protecting children from unsafe contact and protecting their safe family relationships are complementary responsibilities.
Evidence of abuse controls
Courts continue to consider evidence of abuse and its effect on the child.
Protective conditions remain
Protected exchanges, supervised contact, confidential addresses and other safety conditions remain available.
Current remedies are preserved
Nothing in the proposal narrows protections involving domestic violence, sexual assault, exploitation or coercive controlling behavior.
Legislative proposal in development
The Family Continuity Act
The proposal is being refined with stakeholder input and is expected to change through future work with lawmakers and legislative counsel. The full legislative text is not yet public.
Help shape the reform
Practical law should reflect real families.
We welcome thoughtful input from families, professionals, researchers, educators and policymakers.