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.”
Hess v. Hess, 558 P.3d 254 (Idaho 2024). “We agree with Isaac that the magistrate court abused its discretion because its decision is inconsistent with Idaho Code section 32-717B and the Idaho Court of Appeals’ decision in Mahnami.”
Navarro v. Yonkers, 173 P.3d 1141 (Idaho 2007). “I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4), & (5). Therefore, it is presumed that it is not in the child's best interests to permit one parent to unilaterally remove a child from the community where the parents and child resided when such move prevents the other parent from having frequent and…”
Silva v. Silva, 136 P.3d 371 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “I.C. § 32-717B; Roeh, 113 Idaho at 562 , 746 P.”
Hilary Beth Candland Firmage v. Howard Hunter Snow, 347 P.3d 191 (Idaho 2015). “§ 32-717, and failing to clearly state the reasons why a denial of joint custody was orders [sic] as dictated by I.C. § 32-717B.” He also argues that the magistrate court abused its discretion by relying on the evaluator’s findings and adopting those findings as its own.”
Weaver v. Weaver, 507 P.3d 1102 (Idaho 2022). “” I.C. § 32-717B(2). We review the magistrate court’s custody decision under an abuse of direction standard, asking whether “the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently…”
Allbright v. Allbright, 215 P.3d 472 (Idaho 2009). “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…”
Carlos Martinez v. Evelia Carrasco, 396 P.3d 1218 (Idaho 2017). “Idaho Code section 32-717B(2) states: 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…”
Clair v. Clair, 281 P.3d 115 (Idaho 2012). “§ 32-717B favoring the active participation of both parents, “it is presumed that it is not in the child’s best interests to permit one parent to unilaterally remove a child from the community where the parents and child resided when such move prevents the other parent from…”
Jon Thompson v. Kel-Lee Bybee, 384 P.3d 405 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “Thompson asserts the order includes the language in I.C. § 32-717B(3) defining joint legal custody.”
Gray v. Gray, 518 P.3d 1185 (Idaho 2022). “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…”
Markwood v. Markwood, 274 P.3d 1271 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “There is no doubt that it would be in the best interests of [the child] for her parents to live in close enough proximity that they can both have frequent and continuing contact with and physical custody of her.”
Harney v. Weatherby, 781 P.2d 241 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). “In April, 1986, Weatherby filed a motion in the magistrate division of the district court to modify the decree by ordering joint legal custody pursuant to a recently enacted statute (I.C. § 32-717B), and by increasing Weatherby’s visitation rights as the noncustodial parent.”
Drinkall v. Drinkall, 249 P.3d 405 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). “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.”
Mahnami v. Mahnami, 325 P.3d 679 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 32-717B(1). Therefore, we conclude that the magistrate was neither empowered to modify custody directly, nor empowered to modify custody indirectly by awarding sole custody, but describing it as a redefinition of joint custody.”
Lieurance-Ross v. Ross, 129 P.3d 1285 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 32-717B(3). Parents with guardians have unique needs and differing abilities, those parents will have varying abilities to exercise either physical or legal custody of a child.”
Doe v. Doe, 372 P.3d 366 (Idaho 2016). “The magistrate court’s judgment granting part-time co-guardianships to each couple is indistinguishable from a joint custody award in a divorce action pursuant to Idaho Code section 32-717B and the rights of parents in a divorce action under section 32-717A.”
State v. Calver, 307 P.3d 1233 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “” I.C. § 32-717B. We accept that the definitions of “equal custodial rights” and “joint custody” differ within the statutes.”
State v. Joan Michelle Anderson, 294 P.3d 180 (Idaho 2013). “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…”
Gatsby v. Gatsby, 495 P.3d 996 (Idaho 2021). “Linsay maintains the magistrate court abused its discretion because it failed to consider Idaho Code section 32-717B(5), which provides there will be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child if one of the parents is “found by the court to be a…”
Wilson v. Wilson (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…”
Mills v. Mills, 818 P.2d 339 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991). “” The “best interest of the children” standard, described in I.C. § 32-717B, is the controlling consideration in custody decisions and relates the change in conditions to the best interest of the children.”
Jennifer Faith Bickerstaff v. Ryan Martin Bickerstaff (Idaho 2026). “]” First, to the extent Ryan argues that section 32-717B creates a presumption against relocation of a minor child, he is incorrect.”
Hilary Firmage v. Howard Snow (Idaho 2015). “§ 32-717, and failing to clearly state the reasons why a denial of joint custody was orders [sic] as dictated by I.C. § 32-717B.” He also argues that the magistrate court abused its discretion by relying on the evaluator’s findings and adopting those findings as its own.”
DOES I v. DOES II - Re Conservatorship of Minor Child (Idaho 2016).
Wozniak v. Puckett (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).
Franklin v. Franklin (Idaho Ct. App. 2019).
Pace v. Pace (Idaho Ct. App. 2019).
Gatsby v. Gatsby, 495 P.3d 996 (Idaho 2021).
Delagarde v. Delagarde (Idaho Ct. App. 2021). “See I.C. § 32-717B(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.”
Gray v. Gray (Idaho 2022). “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…”
Stroud v. Stanger (Idaho Ct. App. 2022). “” I.C. § 32-717B(2); see Weaver, 170 Idaho at 75-76 , 507 P.”
Erlebach v. Erlebach (Idaho Ct. App. 2024). “See I.C. § 32-717B. That joint physical custody was not an option under the prior schedule due to the distance between Megan’s home and the children’s school does not mean it is not in the best interests of the children to enjoy equal time with their parents now that Megan has…”
Jones v. Jones (Idaho Ct. App. 2024). “The magistrate court noted that, in Roberts, the Idaho Supreme Court stated that “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.” Roberts, 138 Idaho at 405 , 64 P.”
— 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). “I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4), & (5). Therefore, it is presumed that it is not in the child's best interests to permit one parent to unilaterally remove a child from the community where the parents and child resided when such move prevents the other parent from having frequent and…”
Hilary Beth Candland Firmage v. Howard Hunter Snow, 347 P.3d 191 (Idaho 2015). “§ 32-717, and failing to clearly state the reasons why a denial of joint custody was orders [sic] as dictated by I.C. § 32-717B.” He also argues that the magistrate court abused its discretion by relying on the evaluator’s findings and adopting those findings as its own.”
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…”
Hess v. Hess, 558 P.3d 254 (Idaho 2024). “We agree with Isaac that the magistrate court abused its discretion because its decision is inconsistent with Idaho Code section 32-717B and the Idaho Court of Appeals’ decision in Mahnami.”
Mahnami v. Mahnami, 325 P.3d 679 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 32-717B(1). Therefore, we conclude that the magistrate was neither empowered to modify custody directly, nor empowered to modify custody indirectly by awarding sole custody, but describing it as a redefinition of joint custody.”
Wilson v. Wilson (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…”
Hilary Firmage v. Howard Snow (Idaho 2015). “§ 32-717, and failing to clearly state the reasons why a denial of joint custody was orders [sic] as dictated by I.C. § 32-717B.” He also argues that the magistrate court abused its discretion by relying on the evaluator’s findings and adopting those findings as its own.”
— 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 section 32-717B(2) states: 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…”
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.”
Weaver v. Weaver, 507 P.3d 1102 (Idaho 2022). “” I.C. § 32-717B(2). We review the magistrate court’s custody decision under an abuse of direction standard, asking whether “the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently…”
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.”
Drinkall v. Drinkall, 249 P.3d 405 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). “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.”
State v. Joan Michelle Anderson, 294 P.3d 180 (Idaho 2013). “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…”
Lieurance-Ross v. Ross, 129 P.3d 1285 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 32-717B(3). Parents with guardians have unique needs and differing abilities, those parents will have varying abilities to exercise either physical or legal custody of a child.”
Wilson v. Wilson (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…”
Stroud v. Stanger (Idaho Ct. App. 2022). “” I.C. § 32-717B(2); see Weaver, 170 Idaho at 75-76 , 507 P.”
Jennifer Faith Bickerstaff v. Ryan Martin Bickerstaff (Idaho 2026). “]” First, to the extent Ryan argues that section 32-717B creates a presumption against relocation of a minor child, he is incorrect.”
— 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). “Thompson asserts the order includes the language in I.C. § 32-717B(3) defining joint legal custody.”
Silva v. Silva, 136 P.3d 371 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “I.C. § 32-717B; Roeh, 113 Idaho at 562 , 746 P.”
Hess v. Hess, 558 P.3d 254 (Idaho 2024). “We agree with Isaac that the magistrate court abused its discretion because its decision is inconsistent with Idaho Code section 32-717B and the Idaho Court of Appeals’ decision in Mahnami.”
Mahnami v. Mahnami, 325 P.3d 679 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 32-717B(1). Therefore, we conclude that the magistrate was neither empowered to modify custody directly, nor empowered to modify custody indirectly by awarding sole custody, but describing it as a redefinition of joint custody.”
Lieurance-Ross v. Ross, 129 P.3d 1285 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 32-717B(3). Parents with guardians have unique needs and differing abilities, those parents will have varying abilities to exercise either physical or legal custody of a child.”
Delagarde v. Delagarde (Idaho Ct. App. 2021). “See I.C. § 32-717B(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.”
Jennifer Faith Bickerstaff v. Ryan Martin Bickerstaff (Idaho 2026). “]” First, to the extent Ryan argues that section 32-717B creates a presumption against relocation of a minor child, he is incorrect.”
— 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.”
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…”
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.”
Weaver v. Weaver, 507 P.3d 1102 (Idaho 2022). “” I.C. § 32-717B(2). We review the magistrate court’s custody decision under an abuse of direction standard, asking whether “the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently…”
Hilary Beth Candland Firmage v. Howard Hunter Snow, 347 P.3d 191 (Idaho 2015). “§ 32-717, and failing to clearly state the reasons why a denial of joint custody was orders [sic] as dictated by I.C. § 32-717B.” He also argues that the magistrate court abused its discretion by relying on the evaluator’s findings and adopting those findings as its own.”
Hess v. Hess, 558 P.3d 254 (Idaho 2024). “We agree with Isaac that the magistrate court abused its discretion because its decision is inconsistent with Idaho Code section 32-717B and the Idaho Court of Appeals’ decision in Mahnami.”
Wilson v. Wilson (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…”
Jennifer Faith Bickerstaff v. Ryan Martin Bickerstaff (Idaho 2026). “]” First, to the extent Ryan argues that section 32-717B creates a presumption against relocation of a minor child, he is incorrect.”
— 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…”
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.”
Gatsby v. Gatsby, 495 P.3d 996 (Idaho 2021). “Linsay maintains the magistrate court abused its discretion because it failed to consider Idaho Code section 32-717B(5), which provides there will be a presumption that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child if one of the parents is “found by the court to be a…”
Franklin v. Franklin (Idaho Ct. App. 2019).
Gatsby v. Gatsby, 495 P.3d 996 (Idaho 2021).
— 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). “I.C. § 32-717B(1), (4), & (5). Therefore, it is presumed that it is not in the child's best interests to permit one parent to unilaterally remove a child from the community where the parents and child resided when such move prevents the other parent from having frequent and…”
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). “There is no doubt that it would be in the best interests of [the child] for her parents to live in close enough proximity that they can both have frequent and continuing contact with and physical custody of her.”
State v. Joan Michelle Anderson, 294 P.3d 180 (Idaho 2013). “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…”
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.