Pennsylvania’s Custody Bill Gets Its Day at the Capitol. Whether It Gets a Vote Is Another Question.
By Michael Phillips | Family & State
HARRISBURG, Pa. — House Bill 1499, a Pennsylvania proposal to make equal parenting time the legal starting point in custody cases, is the subject of a press conference, a House Judiciary Committee public hearing and a public panel at the State Capitol today.
As introduced, the bill would create a presumption that shared physical custody, shared legal custody and equal parenting time are in a child’s best interest, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence. It defines equal parenting time as as close to 50% as practicable, with neither parent receiving more than 60%. The presumption would give way if a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody isn’t in the child’s best interest, if the parents agree, or if one parent doesn’t request shared custody. Courts would have to explain any departure from equal time in writing, and the same presumption would govern temporary orders.
Sponsor Rep. Jamie Flick, R-South Williamsport, describes the bill as a 50/50 starting point for willing, able, and fit parents. That fitness language does not appear in the text. Flick’s office says the day begins with a 9 a.m. press conference on the Main Capitol Rotunda steps. The Judiciary hearing follows at 10 a.m. in Room 140 Main Capitol, and a panel for affected parents runs from 12:30 to 2 p.m. in Room B-31.
The bill has been waiting for more than 16 months. It was referred to Judiciary on May 28, 2025, and the tracking record shows no committee or floor vote since.
“The bill has been waiting for more than 16 months.”
The Republican chairman is on board. The majority chairman controls the calendar.
HB 1499 lists 79 sponsors, Flick, and 78 co-sponsors, 50 Republicans and 29 Democrats, according to LegiScan. That is out of the House’s 203 seats. Among them is Rep. Rob Kauffman, R-Franklin, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who was not an original sponsor.
Kauffman does not run the committee this session. That role belongs to Rep. Tim Briggs, D-Montgomery, the majority chairman, who is not among the listed sponsors. This report did not find a public statement from Briggs on the bill. The question is whether he and the Democratic majority will move HB 1499 from a hearing to a vote.
“The question is whether he and the Democratic majority will move HB 1499 from a hearing to a vote.”
What the bill would change about safety
Pennsylvania law currently directs courts to give substantial weighted consideration to factors affecting a child’s safety. Act 11 of 2025, signed June 30, 2025, consolidated the custody factors but kept that emphasis. Flick says Act 11 is working, and that the Superior Court has sent back lower-court custody rulings where judges skipped the streamlined factors or failed to give timely written reasons. Family & State has not independently identified the decisions he refers to.
As introduced, HB 1499 would strike the numbered factor list and the weighted-safety language, replacing them with a direction to consider all relevant factors, including past abuse and the level of conflict between the parties. Because the bill was drafted before Act 11, its text targets the older version of the list. This report did not find an announced amendment to conform it.
“As introduced, HB 1499 would strike the numbered factor list and the weighted-safety language.”
Supporters argue a higher evidentiary standard protects fit parents from arbitrary unequal orders. Critics of presumptive-custody laws have argued presumptions can make safety-based departures harder to obtain. No opposition testimony was available for this report.
Where Pennsylvania would go further than Kentucky
Speakers at the press conference include a Kentucky circuit judge. Kentucky has presumed joint custody and equally shared parenting time since 2018, and Flick’s office calls it the first state to enact an equal-parenting law. Kentucky’s presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, while HB 1499 requires clear and convincing evidence, a materially higher burden. Kentucky also suspends its presumption in certain domestic violence situations.
“Kentucky’s presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, while HB 1499 requires clear and convincing evidence.”
A hearing ends the silence around HB 1499. It does not end the bill’s wait. The next question is whether Briggs and the Democratic majority on Judiciary schedule a vote before the 2025-26 session expires. Family & State will update this report as testimony and committee statements become available.
Sources: This report draws on a Williamsport Sun-Gazette item of Oct. 2, based on a news release from Rep. Flick’s office, and on earlier coverage of Flick’s November 2025 Policy Committee hearing. The bill’s provisions come from the text of House Bill 1499 as introduced (Printer’s No. 1755), as reproduced by LegiScan; amendments, if any, were not reviewed. Sponsor count, party split, referral history and hearing listing come from LegiScan’s mirror of the General Assembly’s record, which was not directly checked because the official site blocked automated access. Committee leadership comes from Rep. Briggs’s House page and published chair lists. That the Robert Kauffman on the sponsor list is Rep. Rob Kauffman is an inference from the name and party. Kentucky’s presumption and its preponderance standard come from KRS 403.270, and Act 11’s date and safety language come from the enrolled act. The statement that the bill’s text targets the pre-Act 11 factor list is the author’s reading of the text. The event schedule, the petition figure, the Superior Court remand claim and the “first state” characterization come from the sponsor’s office. A search of Superior Court opinions for this report did not locate the decisions Flick describes, so that claim is unverified. Nothing in this report describes events at today’s hearing.
Keep Family & State Free
Family & State exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Family & State offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Family & State
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
