Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 32-717B (2026)
Joint custody.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Joint custody.
(1) "Joint custody" means an order awarding custody of the minor child or children to both parents and providing that physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way as to assure the child or children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents. The court may award either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or both as between the parents or parties as the court determines is for the best interests of the minor child or children. If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.
(2) "Joint physical custody" means an order awarding each of the parents significant periods of time in which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents or parties.
Joint physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way to assure the child a frequent and continuing contact with both parents but does not necessarily mean the child’s time with each parent should be exactly the same in length nor does it necessarily mean the child should be alternating back and forth over certain periods of time between each parent.
The actual amount of time with each parent shall be determined by the court.
(3) "Joint legal custody" means a judicial determination that the parents or parties are required to share the decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority relating to the health, education and general welfare of a child or children.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), of this section, absent a preponderance of the evidence to the contrary, there shall be a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a minor child or children.
(5) There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008).
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Michalk v. Michalk, 220 P.3d 580 (Idaho 2009). “” I.C. § 32-717B(5) provides: “There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.”
Roeh v. Roeh, 746 P.2d 1016 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “A related issue, for guidance on remand, is whether the magistrate properly applied I.C. § 32-717B in awarding "joint custody" to both parents with primary physical custody to the father.”
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
Wilson v. Wilson, 560 P.3d 1126 (Idaho 2024). “In addition, Idaho favors the active participation of both parents in raising children after divorce, which policy is reflected in I.C. § 32-717B supporting joint custody. For these reasons, in Idaho, the moving parent has the burden of proving relocation would be in the best…”
Woods v. Sanders, 244 P.3d 197 (Idaho 2010). “The Court Declines to Review Sanders’ Argument That Woods Is a “habitual domestic violence abuser.” Sanders argues that Woods is a “habitual domestic violence abuser” and therefore the presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest, under I.”
Krissy M. Lamont v. Matthew J. Lamont, 347 P.3d 645 (Idaho 2015). “3d at 317 (citing I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4)-(5)). “The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Roberts v. Roberts, 64 P.3d 327 (Idaho 2003). “In addition, Idaho favors the active participation of both parents in raising children after divorce, which policy is reflected in I.C. § 32-717B supporting joint custody. For these reasons, in Idaho, the moving parent has the burden of proving relocation would be in the best…”
Russell Peterson v. Laura Knight Peterson, 281 P.3d 1096 (Idaho 2012). “I.C. § 32-717B(2) (emphasis added). Additionally, “it is presumed that a continuing relationship with both parents is in the child’s best interest.”
Hopper v. Hopper, 167 P.3d 761 (Idaho 2007). “I.C. § 32-717B(5). That condition does not exist in this case.”
Schultz v. Schultz, 187 P.3d 1234 (Idaho 2008). “3d at 764 (citing I.C. §§ 32-717B(4), 32-1007, 18-4506). However, this presumption can be overcome if the court finds one parent is a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
State, Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Hart, 132 P.3d 1249 (Idaho 2006). “Heather argues that the trial court’s decision that the parents have joint legal and physical custody and identifying Jacob as the primary physical custodian is inconsistent with I.C. § 32-717B, unsupported by the record, and unreasonable.”
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(1) — 11 cases
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
Roeh v. Roeh, 746 P.2d 1016 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “A related issue, for guidance on remand, is whether the magistrate properly applied I.C. § 32-717B in awarding "joint custody" to both parents with primary physical custody to the father.”
Krissy M. Lamont v. Matthew J. Lamont, 347 P.3d 645 (Idaho 2015). “3d at 317 (citing I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4)-(5)). “The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Navarro v. Yonkers, 173 P.3d 1141 (Idaho 2007).
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(2) — 14 cases
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 560 P.3d 1126 (Idaho 2024). “In addition, Idaho favors the active participation of both parents in raising children after divorce, which policy is reflected in I.C. § 32-717B supporting joint custody. For these reasons, in Idaho, the moving parent has the burden of proving relocation would be in the best…”
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
Krissy M. Lamont v. Matthew J. Lamont, 347 P.3d 645 (Idaho 2015). “3d at 317 (citing I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4)-(5)). “The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Carlos Martinez v. Evelia Carrasco, 396 P.3d 1218 (Idaho 2017).
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(3) — 8 cases
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
Jon Thompson v. Kel-Lee Bybee, 384 P.3d 405 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
Silva v. Silva, 136 P.3d 371 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
Hess v. Hess, 558 P.3d 254 (Idaho 2024).
Mahnami v. Mahnami, 325 P.3d 679 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(4) — 12 cases
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
Woods v. Sanders, 244 P.3d 197 (Idaho 2010). “The Court Declines to Review Sanders’ Argument That Woods Is a “habitual domestic violence abuser.” Sanders argues that Woods is a “habitual domestic violence abuser” and therefore the presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest, under I.”
Schultz v. Schultz, 187 P.3d 1234 (Idaho 2008). “3d at 764 (citing I.C. §§ 32-717B(4), 32-1007, 18-4506). However, this presumption can be overcome if the court finds one parent is a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Krissy M. Lamont v. Matthew J. Lamont, 347 P.3d 645 (Idaho 2015). “3d at 317 (citing I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4)-(5)). “The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(5) — 9 cases
Michalk v. Michalk, 220 P.3d 580 (Idaho 2009). “” I.C. § 32-717B(5) provides: “There shall be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interests of a minor child if one (1) of the parents is found by the court to be a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence as defined in section 39-6303, Idaho Code.”
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Woods v. Sanders, 244 P.3d 197 (Idaho 2010). “The Court Declines to Review Sanders’ Argument That Woods Is a “habitual domestic violence abuser.” Sanders argues that Woods is a “habitual domestic violence abuser” and therefore the presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest, under I.”
Hopper v. Hopper, 167 P.3d 761 (Idaho 2007). “I.C. § 32-717B(5). That condition does not exist in this case.”
Danti v. Danti, 204 P.3d 1140 (Idaho 2009). “” It went on to acknowledge that it was required to evaluate the evidence presented in light of Idaho Code section 32-717 and the joint custody presumption contained in section 32-717B. The court then meticulously analyzed each of the section 32-717 factors and applied them to…”
— Idaho Code § 32-717B(l) — 6 cases
Roeh v. Roeh, 746 P.2d 1016 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “A related issue, for guidance on remand, is whether the magistrate properly applied I.C. § 32-717B in awarding "joint custody" to both parents with primary physical custody to the father.”
Navarro v. Yonkers, 173 P.3d 1141 (Idaho 2007).
Russell Peterson v. Laura Knight Peterson, 281 P.3d 1096 (Idaho 2012). “I.C. § 32-717B(2) (emphasis added). Additionally, “it is presumed that a continuing relationship with both parents is in the child’s best interest.”
Bartosz v. Jones, 197 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2008). “Courts must, however, take into account Idaho's presumption that it is in the child's best interest to maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless one parent is an habitual perpetrator of domestic violence.”
Markwood v. Markwood, 274 P.3d 1271 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.