{
 "tally": {
  "Y": 28,
  "N": 23
 },
 "rows": [
  {
   "state": "Alabama",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No formula credit at 33% (122 overnights). Alabama's ONLY formula-based custody adjustment is the \"Shared 50% physical-c"
  },
  {
   "state": "Alaska",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 and it is not merely a partial \"credit,\" it is a full switch of calculation method. 122 overnights / 365 = 33.4%,"
  },
  {
   "state": "Arizona",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 Arizona's Parenting Time Table is a smooth, continuous schedule with no threshold/cliff; 122 overnights falls in t"
  },
  {
   "state": "Arkansas",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. The Guidelines state: \"These Guidelines assume that the payor parent has the minor child(ren) overnight in his or he"
  },
  {
   "state": "California",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes, but not as a \"credit\" at a threshold \u2014 H% is a continuous variable equal to the actual percentage of time, plugged"
  },
  {
   "state": "Colorado",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 Colorado's new table gives real, non-token credit at 122 overnights: 22.54%, per C.R.S. \u00a714-10-115(8)(h) (verbatim"
  },
  {
   "state": "Connecticut",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO defined formula credit at any specific overnight count \u2014 Connecticut explicitly rejects a mathematical/overnight-base"
  },
  {
   "state": "Delaware",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 122 overnights falls squarely in the \"80 to 124 = 10%\" bracket (Form 509i table, quoted above). The parent with 12"
  },
  {
   "state": "District of Columbia",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. DC's shared-custody threshold is 35% of the year (\u00a716-916.01(q)(1)): \"Where a child spends 35% or more of the time d"
  },
  {
   "state": "Florida",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES, full formula credit \u2014 not partial, not deviation-only. 122 overnights = 33.4% overnights for Parent B, meaning Pare"
  },
  {
   "state": "Georgia",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 Georgia's rule is a continuous formula with NO overnight threshold, so 122 overnights (33%, i.e., NCP_days=122, CP"
  },
  {
   "state": "Hawaii",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO. 122 overnights (33%) is below the 144-overnight extensive-time-sharing threshold, so it falls under \u00a7V.H.5's definit"
  },
  {
   "state": "Idaho",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 full formula credit, not partial. Idaho's sole threshold is \"more than 25% of the overnights in a year,\" Rule 120("
  },
  {
   "state": "Illinois",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. Illinois's shared-care formula (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.8)) requires EACH parent to have 146 or more overnights per year"
  },
  {
   "state": "Indiana",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 122 falls in Table PT's \"121 to 125\" band: TOTAL = 0.481, DUPLICATED = 0.362 (both as a fraction of the Basic Chil"
  },
  {
   "state": "Iowa",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO credit. Iowa's Rule 9.9 \"Extraordinary visitation credit\" verbatim: \"If the noncustodial parent's court-ordered visit"
  },
  {
   "state": "Kansas",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO threshold-formula credit at 122/365 = 33.42% of time. Kansas's Parenting Time Adjustment Formula (Section IV.H.2) is"
  },
  {
   "state": "Kentucky",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 Kentucky gives a formula credit at 122 overnights. KRS 403.2122(2)(a): minimum to qualify for ANY credit is \"eight"
  },
  {
   "state": "Louisiana",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO formula credit. Louisiana's shared-custody formula is binary, keyed only to \"approximately equal amount of time\" (R.S"
  },
  {
   "state": "Maine",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO formula credit of any kind. At 122 overnights (33%), Parent A still has the children \"for more than 50% of the time o"
  },
  {
   "state": "Maryland",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES, but via the full shared-custody formula, not a discrete \"credit.\" 122 overnights = 33.4% of the year, which is (a)"
  },
  {
   "state": "Massachusetts",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "categorical Box 2 is the one-third base case; no credit applied to a higher default",
   "profile_text": "Effectively yes, but not as a discrete \"credit\" \u2014 122 overnights (33%, S2) is almost exactly the \"approximately one-thir"
  },
  {
   "state": "Michigan",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 Michigan's parenting-time adjustment is a continuous overnight-count formula with NO minimum-overnight threshold,"
  },
  {
   "state": "Minnesota",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 S2 (122 overnights = 33.4%, Parent B/payor) gets SOME credit automatically, because the formula in \u00a7 518A.36 Subd."
  },
  {
   "state": "Mississippi",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. 122 overnights (~33%) does not trigger any formula credit under Mississippi law. It falls short of \"equally shared p"
  },
  {
   "state": "Missouri",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes, IF the Line 11 eligibility gate is satisfied (see low_income_or_ssr \u2014 in this exact fact pattern it is NOT satisfie"
  },
  {
   "state": "Montana",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes. Montana's credit is continuous by actual day-count, not a threshold table, but the operative break is 110 days/year"
  },
  {
   "state": "Nebraska",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No automatic/formulaic credit. 122 overnights/yr (33.4%) falls in Nebraska's discretionary band, not either bright line:"
  },
  {
   "state": "Nevada",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO credit. Nevada's joint-custody offset (NAC 425.115) applies only where the arrangement qualifies as \"joint physical c"
  },
  {
   "state": "New Hampshire",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO credit / no provision triggered at all. 122/365 = 33.42%, which is below BOTH statutory thresholds \u2014 the 35% \"substan"
  },
  {
   "state": "New Jersey",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 122/365 = 33.4%, above the 28% (two-overnights/week) threshold, so (assuming the factual gate is met \u2014 parenting p"
  },
  {
   "state": "New Mexico",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No credit at all \u2014 categorical, not a sliding scale. NM's threshold is 35% of the year (\u2248128 overnights), defined in \u00a7 4"
  },
  {
   "state": "New York",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. New York gives NO formula credit at 122 overnights (33%) or any other threshold below an exact majority/50-50 split."
  },
  {
   "state": "North Carolina",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. 122 overnights (33.4%) is one night below the 123-night threshold (33.7%), and Worksheet B's own printed instruction"
  },
  {
   "state": "North Dakota",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes. 122 overnights exceeds the \">100 overnights\" threshold in \u00a7 75-02-04.1-08.1(1), so Parent B (with 122/365 = 33% ove"
  },
  {
   "state": "Ohio",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES, flat credit \u2014 Ohio's threshold is a bright line at 90 overnights, not a sliding scale, so 122 clears it. ORC 3119.0"
  },
  {
   "state": "Oklahoma",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 122 overnights falls in the 121\u2013131 overnight band, which carries the LARGEST adjustment factor (2), not the small"
  },
  {
   "state": "Oregon",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "Yes \u2014 Oregon has no overnight threshold at all; the parenting-time credit is a continuous formula applied from the first"
  },
  {
   "state": "Pennsylvania",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO credit at 122 overnights (33.4%). Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-4(c)(1): \"If a child spends 40% or more of the annual overnights"
  },
  {
   "state": "Rhode Island",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO formula credit. 122/365 = 33.4%, which is below the 49% AO 2018-01 threshold and thus gets zero adjustment beyond wha"
  },
  {
   "state": "South Carolina",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 122 overnights triggers SC's shared-physical-custody mechanism. Threshold, \u00a7 114-4730.A verbatim: \"shared physical"
  },
  {
   "state": "South Dakota",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "attack + rerun-from-docs 2026-09-04: SDCL 25-7-6.14 abatement applies at 122 overnights",
   "profile_text": "NO CONFIRMED FORMULA CREDIT at 122 overnights (33.4%) via the shared-parenting mechanism \u2014 it requires \"at least 180 nig"
  },
  {
   "state": "Tennessee",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 122 overnights clears the 92-day threshold for the ARP-favorable \"variable multiplier,\" so a formula credit applie"
  },
  {
   "state": "Texas",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. Texas gives no formula credit at any overnight count, including 122/33%. \"Amount of time of possession of and access"
  },
  {
   "state": "Utah",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 122 overnights = 33.4% of the year, which exceeds Utah's own 30% threshold for \"joint physical custody\" (81-9-101("
  },
  {
   "state": "Vermont",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 full (not partial/reduced) shared-custody formula applies. 122/365 = 33.42%, which is above the 30% threshold in 1"
  },
  {
   "state": "Virginia",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 full credit. Virginia's threshold for the shared-custody formula is \"more than 90 days\" per year (~24.7%), far bel"
  },
  {
   "state": "Washington",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "No. WA gives ZERO automatic formula credit at 122 overnights (33%) or at any other specific overnight count/percentage \u2014"
  },
  {
   "state": "West Virginia",
   "credit_at_122": "N",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "NO \u2014 122 overnights = 33.4% (122/365), which is below West Virginia's 127-day / 35% threshold for \"extended shared paren"
  },
  {
   "state": "Wisconsin",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES \u2014 full formula treatment, not a partial/threshold credit. 122/365 = 33.4%, which exceeds the \"at least 25 percent or"
  },
  {
   "state": "Wyoming",
   "credit_at_122": "Y",
   "basis": "profile text",
   "profile_text": "YES, formula credit applies, IF the second statutory prong is met. 122/365 = 33.4% overnights, which exceeds the 25% thr"
  }
 ]
}