It's Nice to Be Recognized for Our Effectiveness—Even by Our Opponents: Why "The Co-Parent Trap" Misses the Mark
By Don Hubin
It is not every day that a law review article opposing equal shared parenting includes a glowing tribute to National Parents Organization. But in a recent paper published in the Brooklyn Law Review, law professor Daniel Bousquet singles out NPO as the "leading organization in the campaign for equal parenting time". He goes on to observe that NPO has been "wildly successful in its efforts to obtain the long-elusive prize of presumptive equal parenting," highlighting our landmark legislative victories in states like Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia.
While we certainly disagree with Professor Bousquet’s conclusions, we appreciate the candid recognition. It is gratifying to know that even critics of shared parenting recognize the momentum and effectiveness of NPO’s grassroots advocacy.
However, once Professor Bousquet moves from acknowledging our success to critiquing equal parenting, his argument—titled "The Co-Parent Trap"—quickly unravels.
Here is a straightforward look at what Professor Bousquet proposes, and why his theory gets both the law and child development science fundamentally wrong.
What Is "The Co-Parent Trap"?
In plain English, Professor Bousquet argues that while shared parenting might be fi ne for parents who agree on everything out of court, it should be denied to parents who go to trial.
He claims that if fit, loving parents end up in a courtroom needing a judge to resolve a custody dispute, the mere fact that they went to trial is strong evidence that they have a toxic relationship and are incapable of co-parenting. He calls this courtroom friction contentio parentum ipsa loquitur—a fancy Latin phrase meaning "the parental conflict speaks for itself".
Because they went to trial, Bousquet argues, courts should automatically apply a presumption against shared physical custody and default to giving sole legal custody (decision-making responsibility) to just one parent.
It sounds tidy on paper. In the real world, however, it is a recipe for disaster.
Flaw #1: It Takes Two to Agree, But Only One to Force a Trial (The "Heckler's Veto")
The most glaring fl aw in Bousquet’s theory is simple: a trial is an interactive, two-player game, but it only takes one unreasonable parent to force it.
Imagine Parent A wants a fair 50-50 schedule so the child can keep a strong relationship with both parents. Parent B, out of anger or financial strategy, refuses to agree and demands 100% sole custody. What is Parent A supposed to do? Capitulate and walk away from their child, or go to court to defend their parental rights?
Under Bousquet’s rule, if Parent A stands up for their child and goes to trial, the court treats that trial as "proof" that both parents can't get along—and punishes Parent A by awarding sole custody to the very parent who created the conflict! Or, at a minimum puts the burden of proof on Parent A to show that shared parenting can work.
In legal terms, this creates a "Heckler’s Veto". It hands a massive weapon to hostile or abusive parents: all they have to do to win sole custody is stonewall, manufacture acrimony, and force the case to trial.
Flaw #2: Conflating Courtroom Battles with Daily Parenting
Bousquet assumes that because parents use lawyers to fight over legal paperwork, they must be unfit to care for their children at home.
Decades of family science prove this assumption false. Divorcing parents do not need to be best friends or engage in constant, harmonious communication to share custody successfully. High-conflict parents routinely thrive under parallel parenting frameworks.
With parallel parenting, each parent operates independently in their own home. Transitions occur at neutral sites (like school or daycare), and communication is kept brief, structured, and digital via secure co-parenting apps. This largely insulates children from adult disagreements while preserving their vital bond with both parents. Stripping a child of a parent just because the adults needed a judge to settle a schedule is like taking away a car because the drivers needed a traffic light.
Flaw #3: Ignoring 40 Years of Child Development Science
Bousquet claims that ordering shared custody in litigated cases exposes children to harmful conflict. But he conveniently ignores landmark long-term research that directly contradicts him.
More than 60 peer-reviewed empirical studies—including comprehensive meta-analyses by Dr. Linda Nielsen and physiological health studies by Dr. William Fabricius—show that children in shared physical custody fare better emotionally, academically, and physically than children in sole custody.
Crucially, in studies that specifically measured parental conflict, the benefits of shared physical care remained strong regardless of conflict levels. Having regular, overnight parenting time with both parents acts as a biological and psychological buffer against stress. Taking away one parent does not reduce conflict; it simply leaves the child disenfranchised and grieving.
Moving Forward
Equal shared parenting presumptions were not created to "trap" families. They were created to give family courts a clear, predictable baseline that protects children’s fundamental right to be raised by both fi t parents. Clear statutory defaults actually reduce litigation by taking custody off the table as a financial bargaining chip.
We welcome Professor Bousquet to the debate, and we thank him again for acknowledging NPO’s leadership. But rest assured: NPO will continue its "wildly successful" work across the nation—because children deserve evidence-based family laws, not legal shortcuts that reward conflict and strip away loving parents.
