Rethinking Standard Possession Orders: Why 50/50 Custody May Be the Better Starting Point - Ep 71

In Episode 71 of Cases & Cocktails, Bryan and Janice Eggleston are joined by Robert Garza, a national advocate for family court reform, to discuss one of the most debated topics in Texas family law: standard possession orders vs. equal parenting time. 

Over a cucumber margarita, the conversation explores how custody standards developed—and why many believe it’s time for change.

The Original Purpose of Standard Possession Orders

Standard Possession Orders (SPO) in Texas were originally intended to serve as a minimum baseline—a guideline for the least amount of parenting time a judge should award.

However, as Garza explains, over time, that baseline has often become the default outcome in many custody cases. Instead of being a starting point, it has functioned as a practical ceiling, limiting opportunities for more balanced parenting arrangements.

The Case for Starting at 50/50

Garza advocates a different approach: starting custody cases with a presumption of equal parenting time, then adjusting it based on the facts of each case.

This concept, often referred to as “starting at equality,” does not remove judicial discretion. Instead, it shifts the framework so that:

•  Both parents begin on equal footing 
•  Courts evaluate whether deviation is necessary 
•  Decisions are based on evidence—not default assumptions 

In cases where both parents are fit, involved, and capable, this model promotes shared responsibility and consistency for children.

Accountability and Transparency in Family Court

A key component of Garza’s proposal is increased judicial accountability. Under his framework, if a court awards less-than-equal parenting time, the judge would be required to provide clear, written findings supported by evidence.

This level of transparency helps:

•  Parents understand court decisions 
•  Attorneys better advise their clients 
•  Ensure decisions are grounded in facts, not assumptions 

For many families, the lack of clear reasoning behind custody decisions can lead to confusion, frustration, and prolonged litigation.

Why This Matters in High-Conflict Custody Cases

Bryan highlights a common challenge in family court: cases involving two good, capable parents.

Under current practices, courts may still feel pressured to designate one parent as “primary,” creating an imbalance even when both parents are equally involved.

Starting from a 50/50 framework removes the need to “pick a winner,” allowing courts to focus on what truly matters—the child’s best interest—without unnecessary conflict.

A Nationwide Movement for Family Court Reform

Garza’s work extends far beyond Texas. Through legislative efforts across multiple states, he has developed one-page policy solutions designed to improve custody laws, increase transparency, and promote shared parenting.

His approach focuses on practical reforms—small changes that can create meaningful impact for families navigating the legal system.

The Takeaway

Episode 71 highlights a critical shift in thinking: custody decisions should start from fairness, not limitation.

While every case is unique, beginning with equal consideration for both parents—and requiring clear justification for deviations—can lead to better outcomes for children and families alike.

As the discussion makes clear, meaningful reform doesn’t require rebuilding the system—it often starts with adjusting where we begin.

Be a part of the movement at RobertGarza.US