If you read headlines on HB 1343, you may think this bill settles the question of fatherhood for unmarried dads in Georgia, but it does not. If you read the talking points, you may think HB 1343 creates equal parenting time, but it does not. And if you read social media arguments, you may think it either saves the day or destroys the system. It does neither. 

Fathers Incorporated welcomes HB 1343 as a meaningful step in the right direction. However, serious risks exist in its current language. As written, it has the potential to be very helpful for some fathers and very harmful for others — unless we fine-tune it now.

By Kenneth Braswell, CEO, Fathers Incorporated

Fathers Incorporated (FI) is 1,000% in support of Georgia finding a better way to establish legal fatherhood for unmarried fathers, past, present, and future. We are also 1,000% in support of SB 404 and the push toward a presumption that children deserve meaningful time with both fit parents, including a clear starting point of shared parenting when safety and the child’s best interests allow it. 

This movement — and the conversation around it — matters. It takes courage to pick up a hard issue and put it into legislative language. A state does not change because someone posts a thought online. A state changes because someone writes a bill, takes the heat, counts the votes, walks the halls, and refuses to quit. That effort deserves respect.

Now let’s speak plainly about what respect requires. Respect requires honesty about what is working and what is not. Respect requires the discipline to avoid the “short win” that leads to a long, messy cleanup for children, families, and the courts. When the subject is childhood, putting the long win at risk is not an option. Childhood does not wait on our learning curve. Children do not get refunded the years we spend trying to fix what we created when we rushed.

This is why FI welcomes House Bill 1343, widely known as Georgia’s Responsible Fathers Act, as a meaningful step in the right direction while also naming the serious risks that exist in the language as it’s currently written. 

If you are reading headlines, you may think this bill settles the question of fatherhood for unmarried dads in Georgia, but it does not. If you are reading the talking points, you may think HB 1343 creates equal parenting time, but it does not. And if you are reading social media arguments, you may think it either saves the day or destroys the system. It does neither. 

What it tries to do is narrower and, because it is narrower, it has the potential to be very helpful for some fathers and very harmful for others — unless we fine-tune it now.

Understanding Georgia’s Responsible Fathers Act (HB 1343)

Here is the heart of HB 1343 in everyday language: Georgia has long made a distinction between being a biological father and being a legal father. A man can be the biological father and even establish paternity through genetic testing, but he still will not have the legal standing he needs to seek custody or court-ordered parenting time. That standing is typically achieved through legitimation. 

HB 1343 attempts to create a faster, more accessible pathway to legitimation by allowing the Department of Human Services to issue an administrative legitimation order under certain conditions and then file that order with the superior court clerk. There are safety screens. There are disqualifiers tied to serious concerns. There is also an emphasis on doing this early in the child’s life.

The intent is sound. Nobody who sits across from a confused father holding a stack of court papers can pretend the current system is easy, fair, or consistently navigable. We have watched men who want to do right get lost in a maze that seems to be designed for people who already have money, time, stable transportation, and legal guidance. We have watched mothers shoulder the full custody posture Georgia defaults to, not always because that is what they want, but that’s the structural default when the father is not legitimated. We have watched co-parents who could have formed a workable plan in the first year of a child’s life become enemies by year five, not because they were destined to fail, but because the lengthy, frustrating process hardened them.

So when legislators say, “We can do better,” we agree. When legislators say, “We can create a faster route,” we agree. When legislators say, “We can educate families earlier,” we agree. But “faster” is not the same as “fair.” “Administrative” is not the same as “accountable.” “A pathway” is not the same as “a system.” 

And that’s where the fine-tuning of HB 1343 must happen.

FI has been in the trenches of this work for 21 years nationally and 11 years here in Georgia, not as armchair commentators, but as practitioners, builders, and advocates. Through Gentle Warriors Academy (GWA), we have worked with thousands of fathers walking their fatherhood journey, including many navigating the legitimation process, custody battles, child support obligations, and the emotional toll that comes with trying to be present in a system that recognizes a father’s responsibilities faster than it recognizes his rights. We have watched how legal challenges rarely show up alone. They come wrapped in transportation issues, employment instability, housing uncertainty, unresolved trauma, conflict with the co-parent, distrust of institutions, and a lack of step-by-step support.

This matters because legislation does not exist solely on paper: It lands on people, on families carrying stress, on overloaded courtrooms, and on agencies that may or may not have the capacity, training, staffing, and procedural clarity to carry out what the law demands. 

A bill can be well-intentioned and still create harm if it underestimates how the real world works.

That is why we support HB 1343 while also insisting on amendments. In the field, the difference between a promising reform and a painful reform is often found in the details nobody wants to talk about until the damage is done.

Amending the Responsible Fathers Act in Georgia

Here are seven practical amendments to the bill’s language that would dramatically improve HB 1343 and reduce harm:

1. Write due process into the statute.
If an agency is being empowered to make a determination as consequential as legitimation, the bill must clearly spell out notice requirements, including how the mother is informed, how she can respond, how disputes are handled, what evidence standards look like in practice, what hearings exist if facts are contested, and what appeal pathway exists for either parent. “Trust the process” is not a legal standard. Families deserve a process that is visible, reviewable, and consistent across counties. Due process provisions must include clear notice, dispute resolution, appeal rights, and error correction

2. Extend the eligibility window and add “good cause” exceptions. 
The time window proposed by HB 1343 is so restrictive that it risks creating a new cliff. When access is tied to a narrow timeframe after birth, fathers who are unaware of the pregnancy, unaware of the child, blocked from contact, deployed, incarcerated, hospitalized, or simply navigating instability can be shut out. That does not promote responsibility. It punishes reality. A workable bill must include a longer eligibility window and clear “good cause” exceptions, because fatherhood is not a coupon that expires before a man even gets his footing.

3. Expand inputs for the presence of conflict and coercion. 
The bill must address how conflict and coercion show up outside criminal convictions. Safety matters. Protective orders matter. Convictions matter. But anyone who has worked in family systems knows that coercive control, intimidation, manipulation, and high-conflict dynamics can exist without a conviction on record. If the bill’s safety screens are limited to what’s already documented by the system, it can miss what is happening in the home. This does not mean we deny fathers; it means we build safeguards and assessment pathways that reflect reality. A better version of this bill includes a safety framework that recognizes coercive control patterns and high-conflict indicators beyond convictions, with appropriate safeguards that still protect fit fathers from blanket suspicion. 

4. Clarify the relationship between the administrative pathway and the courts. 
How will the administrative record be used in court, and how will contested issues be handled? HB 1343 points fathers toward court for custody and parenting time after legitimation, but it does not address how court actors should treat the administrative legitimation record. What weight does it carry? What happens when a mother disputes the legitimacy of the administrative process? Without clarity, we risk creating a new wave of contested cases where families end up litigating the administrative process itself.

5. Handle the intersection with child support with great care. 
Using child support systems as part of the pathway may appear efficient, but it can also reinforce distrust if fathers experience it as “you enter through enforcement to be recognized as a parent.” That framing can discourage participation, increase conflict, and deepen the emotional divide between responsibility and belonging. Georgia must be intentional in separating fatherhood recognition from enforcement posture, even while ensuring financial responsibility remains clear.

6. Define the standards for effective communication and education.
Education at the hospital is a strong idea, but effectiveness must be defined, not assumed. A pamphlet and a video can be powerful, or they can be a box-check. Language access, literacy levels, accessibility for parents with disabilities, cultural competence, and follow-up must be part of the plan. If the state says education is the solution, then it must ensure education is delivered in a way that actually educates. This includes creation of a plain-language statewide guide that explains paternity, legitimation, custody, parenting time, and child support as distinct concepts, with step-by-step pathways for families. 

7. Be intentional with data collection and oversight. 
Reporting requirements and legislative oversight must be written into implementation of HB 1343. Who is the authority responsible for quality control, training, consistency, and reporting? How will outcomes be tracked? How many petitions are granted and denied — and why? Are denials disproportionately affecting certain communities? What’s the impact on court filings? What is the impact on parenting time outcomes? Without data and oversight, we are not reforming; we are experimenting on families.

Those seven gaps do not mean we throw the bill away. They mean we do what responsible policymakers do. We tighten the language now so children and families don’t pay later.

How HB 1343 and SB 404 Work Together 

Now, let’s place HB 1343 beside SB 404, because Georgia families will experience them together, not separately.

SB 404 seeks to set a new starting point in custody matters by establishing a presumption of joint legal and physical custody, with equal parenting time, when it is in the child’s best interests and when safety concerns do not require another approach. Many fathers have fought for this for years. Many mothers have supported it too, especially those who want a stable co-parenting structure rather than a tug-of-war. When implemented with safeguards and with an honest view of family complexity, shared parenting can reduce litigation, reduce conflict, and improve outcomes for children.

HB 1343 is about the front end of the pipeline: who becomes a legal father and how quickly. SB 404 concerns what courts do when parenting time and custody are in dispute. Together, they can create a more coherent system, but together they can also create a new set of unintended pressures.

The Strength of the SB 404 / HB 1343 Combination
If more unmarried fathers can establish legal standing earlier, more children may have earlier access to two engaged parents, and more families may be able to set stable schedules earlier. This is real. This matters.

The Risk of the SB 404 / HB 1343 Combination
If the state makes administrative legitimation faster while also setting a strong shared-parenting presumption, families could be pushed into high-stakes custody fights sooner, especially where relationships are unstable or unsafe. The perception may become, “Legitimate quickly, then equal time is coming.” That perception alone will drive behavior. It will drive filings. It will drive conflict. It will also create fear for some mothers, who may interpret the reforms as an automatic transfer of power rather than a child-centered recalibration.

Georgia must not allow confusion when these policies are intended to prevent it.

That is why FI is calling for aligned amendments and aligned public education around both bills — so no father is left behind and no family is misled.

The Fatherhood Work That Must Accompany Policy Reform

There’s another piece Georgia cannot ignore, and it is the piece that often disappears in legislative debate. Law is a barrier, but it’s not the only barrier. 

Even the best bills will fail families if the state does not also build a supportive ecosystem around fathers and co-parents. That ecosystem includes navigation assistance, mediation access, responsible fatherhood programs, parenting classes, conflict coaching, employment supports, mental health support, and culturally competent, father-inclusive services that treat men as more than case numbers. This is not a soft add-on. It is the difference between a court order and a workable pathway.

We have seen what happens when you hand a father a legal obligation without helping him build the capacity to meet it. We have also seen what happens when you hand a father a legal right without helping him build the skills to use it well. The child gets caught in the middle either way.

So yes, Georgia should reform legitimation. Yes, Georgia should modernize custody frameworks. Yes, Georgia should aim for a fair playing field in parenting time and responsibility. And… Georgia must do it with precision.

The moment we are in right now is bigger than two bills. This is a pivot point in the history of responsible fatherhood work. Across the country, legislatures are wrestling with the same questions Georgia is facing: how to recognize fathers, how to protect families, how to promote shared parenting when appropriate, how to reduce litigation, how to modernize child support policies, how to prevent harm, and how to keep children at the center instead of turning them into trophies in adult conflict.

Getting this close to right is the assignment.

We can’t afford to throw water onto the floor with the hope that someday we will clean it all up. Children will slip while we argue over mop buckets. Georgia’s lawmakers have an opportunity to model what it looks like to legislate with courage and care, urgency and restraint, vision and detail.

FI stands ready to help. Not as critics shouting from the sidelines, but as practitioners who know what happens after the press release. We know the fathers who will try to use these pathways. We know the co-parents who will be impacted by them. We know the confusion that can erupt when language is not plain, when time windows are not humane, when the process is not transparent, and when accountability is not built in.

Support the movement. Support the conversation. Support the intent. Then do the responsible thing and amend the language so the reform is not a headline today and a lawsuit tomorrow. 

Georgia can build a system where responsible fatherhood is not just a slogan, but a structure that works for as many families as possible, in real-life situations where children are protected and included at every step.