Molly K. Olson: Why Dad Deserves Equal Standing in Custody Law
OP-ED originally published by: Weekend Post Bulletin | Rochester, MN
Original Publish Date: June 20, 2026.
Republished by Fathers Anonymous with Molly K. Olson’s explicit permission. Olson represents that the Weekend Post Bulletin authorized her to share the article as she sees fit.
Read the original article
By Molly K. Olson
Mississippi now has a legal starting place of equal parenting time for divorced and separated parents. Minnesota law does not. Is the divorce-lawyer lobby to blame?
Fathers do matter. Modern day parents know this. Millennial fathers have redefined the role of the father. Knowing their value, and adjusting to culture changes, they have moved away from the traditional “sole breadwinner” archetype, to a highly active, hands-on parenting model.[1] Their views are consistent with the research: kids don’t need their mom any more than they need their dad, at any age.[2][3]
Minnesota custody laws do not reflect this.
In April 2026, Mississippi became the sixth state to eclipse Minnesota in protecting father involvement. Mississippi now has a legal starting place of equal parenting time for divorced and separated parents. Minnesota law does not.[4][5]
Historically, for over 50 years and beyond, the presumption in divorce and custody law for most states, including Minnesota, has been moms “get the kids.” Fit fathers had access restricted to every other weekend.
The model assuming mom will be primary parent, with dad marginalized to every other weekend, was not based on any social science research. However flawed, it became the default presumption in the 1950s when few moms worked outside the home, and dads were the presumed sole breadwinner.
In 2006, Minnesota upgraded that presumption to 25% parenting time for fathers.[4] That’s just seven nights a month. Advocates supporting a child’s equal need for fathers were promised this “baby step” of 25% would gradually move to 50%.
In the last 20 years, however, there’s been no further advancement towards equality for fathers.
Today, 79% of women in Minnesota are in the workforce. Second highest in the nation. Yet the long-outdated presumption that moms “get the kids” remains. Curiously, the National Organization of Women feminists in the 1970s stated to Congress that “custody of the kids was a curse.” Equal shared parenting time and custody benefits women. Equally sharing the parenting time between two separated parents doesn’t just provide more opportunities for women in the workplace,[6] it is better for children.[7][8][9]
More than five decades of credible peer-reviewed social science research has clearly established the significant contribution of fathers.[10] The devastating effects of father absence and dad-deprived kids are well-researched, and we see the costs play out in society.[11] Marginalization of the fit father results in lower empathy development in kids, more gang activity, more violent teen and young adult crime, lower academic scores, and being less able to manage aggression.
Each parent brings value, though different value, on different days, at different times in their lives. Custody law should not be artificially determining who is the better or worse parent based on a snapshot in time, when there are two fit parents.
But in Minnesota, that is exactly what the law does.
Equal parenting, as a starting place in law, has been before the Legislature for 27 years in a row. But the bills have been ignored, stalled or blocked. Among citizens, support for equal parenting is a nonpartisan issue with bipartisan support. But most Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairs continue to block the bills that would support a child’s right and equal need for each fit parent. The divorce-lawyer lobby seems to control these committee chairs. The divorce-lawyer lobby seems to seek the best interest of lawyers, not the best interest of children.
Approximately 30 states have been considering such bills. The bar associations in nearly all states consistently advocate for unfettered judicial discretion in family court, under the guise of “the best interests of the child.” Yet judges are not experts in children. They rely on evaluators who typically never spend more than 90 minutes observing each parent-child before making a decision on who is the better or worse parent. Decisions are made based on a specific list of statutory “best interest of the child” (BIC) criteria.[5]
BIC factors are a “smokescreen.” The phrase “best interest of the child” gives the credulous and uninformed eye the illusion of justice. The phrase is a specious facade that gives misplaced comfort and confidence that well-informed decisions will be made to protect children.
In reality, the statutory list of BIC are broad, vague, and subjective, and should therefore, by U.S. Supreme Court standards, be considered unconstitutional. Using these BIC criteria, it’s impossible for a fit parent to know what behaviors they need to do, or what behaviors they need to avoid, to be able to equally parent their children.
In two real-life cases, one father was denied equal parenting because he wouldn’t get a cat. (Allegedly not putting kids needs first.) Meanwhile, in another jurisdiction, an evaluator decided a dad should be denied equal parenting because he got a cat. (Allegedly as a bribe to make the kids want to be with him.) And in another real-life case, a dad was denied equal parenting because he made the kids say “may I please be excused from the table” after dinner. (Allegedly enough to consider the dad too controlling.)
It's time to ditch the old unsupported model minimizing dads, phase out vague criteria, and minimize control of the special interest lawyer groups.
Equal shared parenting as a presumptive starting place in Minnesota law, for fit parents, that is rebuttable to protect the safety of children, is long overdue.
Molly K. Olson is an unpaid citizen advocate who has lobbied for equal parenting for 27 years. She is the founder and policy advisor for the Center for Parental Responsibility. She frequently consults with advocates in other states. She lives in West Lakeland Township, Minnesota.
References
References and source descriptions added by Fathers Anonymous; the article’s wording is unchanged. The sources document the findings described below and do not independently verify every assertion in the article. Uncited passages remain the author’s statements.
[1] Livingston, G., & Parker, K. (2019). “8 facts about American dads.” Pew Research Center. Documents increased paternal childcare, declining sole-breadwinner households, and a higher share of stay-at-home fathers among Millennials than among Gen X fathers at the same age.
[2] Warshak, R. A. (2014). “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 46–67. Endorsed by 110 researchers and practitioners, the report supports shared residential arrangements for children under four in normal circumstances. It provides support for both parents’ involvement in early childhood, rather than establishing a universal rule for every child and age.
[3] Fabricius, W. V., & Suh, G. W. (2017). “Should Infants and Toddlers Have Frequent Overnight Parenting Time With Fathers? The Policy Debate and New Data.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 68–84. More overnight time with fathers during infancy and toddlerhood, including equal overnights, was associated with better subsequent relationships with both parents. The authors identify these as associations, not established causal effects.
[4] Minnesota Statutes §518.175, subdivision 1(g). Establishes a rebuttable presumption that a child receives at least 25% of parenting time with each parent, absent other evidence. This citation documents the statutory percentage; it does not establish the article’s historical account of its adoption or promises about future legislation.
[5] Minnesota Statutes §518.17, subdivision 1. Contains Minnesota’s best-interest factors and provisions governing joint custody. Paragraph (b)(7)–(9) addresses custody presumptions and states that joint physical custody does not require an absolutely equal division of time. This citation identifies the governing framework; it does not establish the article’s constitutional conclusion.
[6] Bonnet, C., Garbinti, B., & Solaz, A. (2022). “Does Part-Time Mothering Help Get a Job? The Role of Shared Custody in Women’s Employment.” European Journal of Population, 38, 885–913. Using French administrative data, the researchers estimated that mothers who had not repartnered were 24 percentage points more likely to work one year after divorce under shared custody than sole custody. No significant effect was found for repartnered mothers.
[7] Baude, A., Pearson, J., & Drapeau, S. (2016). “Child Adjustment in Joint Physical Custody Versus Sole Custody: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 57(5), 338–360. Finds better overall adjustment, on average, among children in joint physical custody compared with sole custody.
[8] Nielsen, L. (2018). “Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Children’s Outcomes Independent of Parent–Child Relationships, Income, and Conflict in 60 Studies.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 59(4), 247–281. Reviews generally favorable joint-physical-custody outcomes, including studies accounting for income, parental conflict and parent-child relationships.
[9] Steinbach, A. (2019). “Children’s and Parents’ Well-Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review.” Family Process, 58(2), 353–369. Reviews 40 studies from North America, Europe and Australia. Together, references [7]–[9] address average outcomes under shared physical custody; definitions vary, and these arrangements are not always exactly 50/50.
[10] Sarkadi, A., Kristiansson, R., Oberklaid, F., & Bremberg, S. (2008). “Fathers’ involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.” Acta Paediatrica, 97(2), 153–158. Reviews 24 publications and finds predominantly beneficial relationships between father involvement and children’s behavioral, psychological, cognitive and social development. Supports the contribution of fathers, rather than independently documenting the article’s five-decade timeline.
[11] McLanahan, S., Tach, L., & Schneider, D. (2013). “The Causal Effects of Father Absence.” Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399–427. Reviews research designed to examine causal effects of father absence, with the strongest evidence concerning high-school graduation, social-emotional adjustment and adult mental health. It does not separately establish every outcome in the following sentence or equate unequal parenting time with father absence.
