Shared parenting sounds nice, but what about cases where one parent is abusive?

That is exactly why I support a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute mandate. A rebuttable presumption means the starting point is shared parenting, and the court must have specific evidence to deviate. Abuse, neglect, substance abuse, and documented danger to the child are all grounds to rebut the presumption. What shared parenting prevents is the opposite situation, where a fit parent is cut out of their child's life with no real evidence of harm.

You sound like a men's rights advocate. Isn't this anti-woman?

Fit mothers and fit fathers both benefit from shared parenting. The research shows children do better with both parents actively involved, regardless of which parent statistically tends to get primary custody under the current system. This is not a gender issue. It is a children issue and a fundamental fairness issue.

Cameras in courtrooms will discourage victims of abuse from testifying.

Genuine privacy protections will always apply to vulnerable witnesses, especially minor children and confirmed abuse victims. What public access protects against is judicial misconduct, inconsistent rulings, and the perception that family court operates by rules nobody can see. When family court decisions affect the rest of a child's life, the public has a right to see how those decisions are made.

Mandatory timelines will rush important decisions.

Family court cases currently drag on for years. Children grow up during those years. Parents lose homes, jobs, and savings during those years. Justice delayed is justice denied. Mandatory timelines force the system to prioritize the cases in front of it. Complex cases still have nine months, which is more than enough time if the court is actually working on it.

False allegations are rare. Why are you focused on that instead of real abuse?

False allegations and real abuse are both serious problems, and treating one seriously does not mean ignoring the other. Real abuse victims are best protected by a system that takes allegations seriously with real investigation. When there are no consequences for false allegations, the system is flooded with claims that cannot be distinguished from real ones, and that hurts real victims most of all.

Judicial accountability sounds like attacking judges. Are you politicizing the courts?

Every other branch of government has accountability mechanisms. Voters choose legislators. Executives answer to the public. Courts are supposed to be guided by law and precedent, not judicial whim. When a judge has enormous discretion over the most personal and painful decisions families can face, the public has a right to expect accountability, transparency, and consistency.

You have personal history with family court. Isn't this just grievance politics?

I learned about this system the hard way, and I will not pretend I did not. But grievance would be running for office to settle scores. I am running because what happened in my life happens to thousands of South Dakota families every year, and I refuse to pretend it is fine. Personal experience is how most people become the experts they are.

Mandatory paternity tests sound invasive. Why require them for everyone?

Mandatory paternity testing protects everyone. It protects fathers who have been fraudulently put on birth certificates. It protects children who have a right to know their biological origins. It protects mothers from accusations of dishonesty. It protects the child support system from being built on false assumptions. One test at birth solves problems that can otherwise take decades and millions of dollars to untangle.

Eleven bills is too ambitious. Pick one and focus.

The current system is broken in eleven ways. Fixing one while leaving the others broken just shifts the pressure somewhere else. A comprehensive package is actually more achievable than a series of one-off bills, because each reform reinforces the others. Every single one of these bills has model legislation and national precedent behind it.

Pro-life and pro-parental rights sound like code words for controlling women.

Every word of my platform is about protecting children, protecting parents, and protecting families. Mothers are parents. Women who want their children to have present fathers are the biggest beneficiaries of shared parenting. Women who want to be the primary decision-makers for their children's health, education, and faith are the biggest beneficiaries of strong parental rights. This platform protects women.

From the campaign

May 17, 2026

Where I Stand on Shared Parenting

Eight years ago a family court case brought my son to Rapid City. Two sessions of work in Pierre later, here is exactly where I stand on Shared Parenting and how we finish the work in 2027.

Pillar A: Life & FamilyShared ParentingFamily Court Reform

Eight years ago a family court case brought my son to Rapid City. I followed him here, bought a house here in 2018, and moved my life here for good in 2022. In the two legislative sessions since I finished my Juris Doctor, I have fought to pass Shared Parenting in Pierre, advocating alongside the bill's sponsors Sen. Tom Pischke and Rep. Bobbi Andera.

In 2025, Sen. Pischke's SB 172 passed the Senate twenty to thirteen. It went to the House and on March 10, 2025, after being reconsidered, it failed by a single vote. Thirty-five yeas. Thirty-four nays. One more yea and South Dakota would already have Shared Parenting on the books.

Both of District 32's seated representatives voted no.

In 2026, Sen. Pischke's SB 224 passed the Senate twenty to fourteen. Rep. Andera carried HB 1067 on the same fight in the House. The bill came close again. It did not get over the line.

The next session has to be the one that does.

What Shared Parenting actually means

A rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody for fit parents. Plain English: when a marriage with minor children ends, the court starts from the position that both fit parents stay equally in their child's life. Mom and Dad begin equal. The court can deviate from that starting point only when there is real evidence of abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or another circumstance that endangers the child.

That is not radical. That is what South Dakota's own Republican Party platform already says it believes about families. Section 8.4 reads:

"We affirm it is in the best interest of children to be raised by both mother and father."

Shared Parenting is the operational version of that sentence for the cases where marriages end.

Why now

Six states currently have a strong equal Shared Parenting presumption in their statutes. Kentucky led the country in 2017 and 2018. Arkansas joined in 2021. West Virginia in 2022. Florida and Missouri in 2023. Mississippi just passed HB 1662 in 2026; it takes effect for orders entered after July 1, 2026.

When we finish the work in the 2027 session, South Dakota becomes the seventh. That is the goal.

The National Parents Organization's 2019 South Dakota report card cites 84 percent public support for a rebuttable presumption of Shared Parenting. The position is not controversial with the people who would be affected. It is controversial with the system that profits from the status quo.

A path back

Most Shared Parenting proposals stop at "fit parents begin equal." The 2027 version of this bill needs to go one step further. When a parent has lost parenting time, the court should provide a clear and reasonable path back. Counseling. Testing. Completed programs. Supervised steps that demonstrate fitness. The goal is restoration of the parent-child relationship wherever it is safe to restore.

South Dakota can be the first state in the country to write that path back into the statute alongside the presumption. We do not just pull parents out of their children's lives. We do not just keep them out forever. We give the willing parent a route home, and we keep the child's well-being at the center of every step on that route.

What I will file in 2027

If District 32 sends me to Pierre, I will file or co-sponsor:

A reintroduction of Shared Parenting, with the path-back language.
A Right to Defense bill that funds counsel for parents facing the loss of their parental rights when they cannot afford an attorney. The current system favors whoever has more money for lawyers. That is not justice. That is access.
The remaining ten bills in the Martin Family Court Reform Stack, including mandatory case timelines, cameras in courtrooms, real consequences for false allegations, and a capstone bill that anchors due process in family court.

Common questions

The questions on this issue come up everywhere I go. They deserve honest answers, not talking points. The FAQ section below addresses the most common pushbacks directly. If you have a question that is not answered here, write to me at zac@zac4sd.com and I will answer it personally.

Anticipated pushbacks · prepared responses

Common questions on this issue

These are the questions and concerns that come up most often. The responses below are my honest answers, not talking points.

Q. Shared parenting sounds nice, but what about cases where one parent is abusive?: A. That is exactly why I support a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute mandate. A rebuttable presumption means the starting point is shared parenting, and the court must have specific evidence to deviate. Abuse, neglect, substance abuse, and documented danger to the child are all grounds to rebut the presumption. What shared parenting prevents is the opposite situation, where a fit parent is cut out of their child's life with no real evidence of harm.
Q. You sound like a men's rights advocate. Isn't this anti-woman?: A. Fit mothers and fit fathers both benefit from shared parenting. The research shows children do better with both parents actively involved, regardless of which parent statistically tends to get primary custody under the current system. This is not a gender issue. It is a children issue and a fundamental fairness issue.
Q. Cameras in courtrooms will discourage victims of abuse from testifying.: A. Genuine privacy protections will always apply to vulnerable witnesses, especially minor children and confirmed abuse victims. What public access protects against is judicial misconduct, inconsistent rulings, and the perception that family court operates by rules nobody can see. When family court decisions affect the rest of a child's life, the public has a right to see how those decisions are made.
Q. Mandatory timelines will rush important decisions.: A. Family court cases currently drag on for years. Children grow up during those years. Parents lose homes, jobs, and savings during those years. Justice delayed is justice denied. Mandatory timelines force the system to prioritize the cases in front of it. Complex cases still have nine months, which is more than enough time if the court is actually working on it.
Q. False allegations are rare. Why are you focused on that instead of real abuse?: A. False allegations and real abuse are both serious problems, and treating one seriously does not mean ignoring the other. Real abuse victims are best protected by a system that takes allegations seriously with real investigation. When there are no consequences for false allegations, the system is flooded with claims that cannot be distinguished from real ones, and that hurts real victims most of all.
Q. Judicial accountability sounds like attacking judges. Are you politicizing the courts?: A. Every other branch of government has accountability mechanisms. Voters choose legislators. Executives answer to the public. Courts are supposed to be guided by law and precedent, not judicial whim. When a judge has enormous discretion over the most personal and painful decisions families can face, the public has a right to expect accountability, transparency, and consistency.
Q. You have personal history with family court. Isn't this just grievance politics?: A. I learned about this system the hard way, and I will not pretend I did not. But grievance would be running for office to settle scores. I am running because what happened in my life happens to thousands of South Dakota families every year, and I refuse to pretend it is fine. Personal experience is how most people become the experts they are.
Q. Mandatory paternity tests sound invasive. Why require them for everyone?: A. Mandatory paternity testing protects everyone. It protects fathers who have been fraudulently put on birth certificates. It protects children who have a right to know their biological origins. It protects mothers from accusations of dishonesty. It protects the child support system from being built on false assumptions. One test at birth solves problems that can otherwise take decades and millions of dollars to untangle.
Q. Eleven bills is too ambitious. Pick one and focus.: A. The current system is broken in eleven ways. Fixing one while leaving the others broken just shifts the pressure somewhere else. A comprehensive package is actually more achievable than a series of one-off bills, because each reform reinforces the others. Every single one of these bills has model legislation and national precedent behind it.
Q. Pro-life and pro-parental rights sound like code words for controlling women.: A. Every word of my platform is about protecting children, protecting parents, and protecting families. Mothers are parents. Women who want their children to have present fathers are the biggest beneficiaries of shared parenting. Women who want to be the primary decision-makers for their children's health, education, and faith are the biggest beneficiaries of strong parental rights. This platform protects women.

← All posts Full pillar →Subscribe on Substack →

Join the campaign

We win District 32 the old fashioned way.

Door by door. Neighbor by neighbor. Yard sign by yard sign. Every conversation, every donation, every shift counts. This is a grassroots campaign for the heart of Rapid City, and that is exactly what it takes.

Donate Volunteer Yard Sign