You are here

Court Ruling - COVID does not override COs

Mominit's picture

In the Ontario court we have already had our first challenge on Court Ordered visitation vs Government ordered COVID measures.  The summary.  Mom and Dad have joint custody with Mom  having primary and Dad having alternate weekends.

The issue:

d.   The mother has brought an urgent motion to suspend all in-person access because of COVID-19.

e.     The mother expresses concern that the father will not maintain social distancing for the child during periods of access.

f.     In any event, the mother says she and her family are practicing social isolation in their home for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis.  She doesn’t want her son leaving the home for any reason – including seeing the father.


The judge refused to order a change or entertain the motion saying:

  On the one hand, in this case there is an existing parenting order.  There is a presumption that all orders should be respected and complied with.  More to the point, there is a presumption that the existing order reflects a determination that meaningful personal contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child.

8              On the other hand, the well-publicized directives from government and public health officials make it clear that we are in extraordinary times; and that our daily routines and activities will for the most part have to be suspended, in favour of a strict policy of social distancing and limiting community interactions as much as possible.

9              Parents are understandably confused and worried about what to do.  Similarly, this is uncharted territory for our court system.  We all have to work together to show flexibility, creativity and common sense – to promote both the physical and emotional well-being of children.

10            None of us know how long this crisis is going to last.  In many respects we are going to have to put our lives “on hold” until COVID-19 is resolved.  But children’s lives – and vitally important family relationships – cannot be placed “on hold” indefinitely without risking serious emotional harm and upset.  A blanket policy that children should never leave their primary residence – even to visit their other parent – is inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the best interests of the child.  In troubling and disorienting times, children need the love, guidance and emotional support of both parents, now more than ever. 

11            In most situations there should be a presumption that existing parenting arrangements and schedules should continue, subject to whatever modifications may be necessary to ensure that all COVID-19 precautions are adhered to – including strict social distancing. 

But no matter how difficult the challenge, for the sake of the child we have to find ways to maintain important parental relationships – and above all, we have to find ways to do it safely.

20            If a parent has a concern that COVID-19 creates an urgent issue in relation to a parenting arrangement, they may initiate an emergency motion – but they should not presume that the existence of the COVID-19 crisis will automatically result in a suspension of in-person parenting time.  They should not even presume that raising COVID-19 considerations will necessarily result in an urgent hearing. 

21            We will deal with COVID-19 parenting issues on a case-by-case basis. 

So the decision of the Ontario courts at least - do not be reckless in endangering your children. AND.... Children need the physical presence of both parents in cases of disorienting times.  Find the best way to do it safely, or come back to the court with very specific examples of why it cannot possibly be safely.  Becuase the courts have decided that kids need both parents, especially in times of crisis.  It's up to the parents to figure out how to make it safe.





futurobrillante99's picture

Bravo!! Common sense, for once.

You know she was going for an increase in child support, too.

tog redux's picture

I agree with this court order. I know others on here have strong feelings that all visitation should be suspended, but I don't agree.

futurobrillante99's picture

I'm agreeing with you Tog - just clarifying my POV.

Barring any obvious risks, the custodial parent should not be able to dictate visitation for the non custodial parent in an attempt to alienate the child or get a bigger child support payout for sure.

The custodial parent should not be able to FORCE the NP to take a child if there are people at risk in that household and the CP shouldn't be able to deny visitation.

There are some angry and diabolical people out there who don't seem to care about what's best for their children.

I think it's times like this when the custodial parent realizes the downside of wanting that designation. It doesn't make them all powerful and the NP CAN decline visitation.

Not arguing with you but clarifying my position. If I were a non-custodial parent in this situation, I would probably decline visitation because of my doctor's warning that the medication I take could cause me to have a worse case of the virus if I were to catch it.


tog redux's picture

I agree.  I think that there are times that visitation should be suspended, but it should be by agreement of both parties, and not just as a general reaction to the pandemic. If someone wants to not have their child over, that is their choice - but the other parent should not dictate that.

Mominit's picture

I like the way he balanced it.  No - do not be reckless with your kids.  And also No- this is not the time to throw away thoughtful compromise and be rigid.  The grown ups NEED to figure out a way to put the kids emotional health first.  Not just now in the short term, but emotional health as this event will impact in the long term too.

Kids need both parents in scary times - to see how the role models in their lives react similarly and differently.  And when the rest of their world is up in the air, any form of normal is immensely comforting.  So figure it out.  Wash your hands.  Meet outside the McDonalds you usually exchange at instead of inside.  Don't allow sleepover parties and play dates in the park with lots of friends.  Basically - limit all unnecessary contact.  But don't consider the othe parent "unnecessary".

tog redux's picture

I agree. And don't interfere with the other parent's relationship with the child because of your own fears.

Monkeysee's picture

This isn’t just a ‘fear’ tog, it’s a pandemic that’s only just begun to claim lives. I will do everything I can to keep my child and skids safe, even if it’s painful. The boys understand why they aren’t coming over, both parents have done a fantastic job of speaking candidly with them, and they’re managing the situation brilliantly. 

tog redux's picture

Yes, I get that, for god's sake, I live in New York! And I'm staying home to avoid it as well. But I will reiterate, this mother doesn't get to make the decison based on her own fears. Isn't that the thing you are saying NOT to do, make decisions based on emotion? Your DH and their mother made the decison together, that's the difference. 

But this mother was basing it on her FEAR that the father wouldn't adhere to any social distancing, not on any real facts that said he wasn't.

What about all the people who still have to work? Should all doctors and nurses have their kids removed to protect them?

I do get your strong feelings, but you don't have the corner on truth, as this judge is stating.

Monkeysee's picture

To be fair, DH unilaterally decided, as the NCP, he would not be exercising visitation right now. We were fortunate that when he told BM she was in agreement it was the right move. Irregardless of what her reaction was DH would not have been picking his kids up. 

I can also see the difference between a parent being afraid of the other parents carelessness in the current climate (we have members on this site with the same concerns right now), and simply choosing to continue visitation as normal because they feel ‘mean’ not seeing their kids for a while. Even a reduced visitation schedule would be a step in the right direction. 

tog redux's picture

That's also fine - if one parent wants to give up their time, or reduce their time.  But having experienced an alienating BM, no way would I agree that one parent gets the right to decide that THEY keep the kid.  In our case, BM would totally have done that for as long as the recommendations went on, and would have allowed DH ZERO contact with SS the entire time. And after it was over, SS would have been a brainwashed bot, as he always was when he spent prolonged time with BM.

We can't ignore mental and emotional health just to focus on physical health. All needs must be addressed.

Monkeysee's picture

Of course, there are always exceptions to be made. But not every mother who’s concerned about their child’s safety right now & wants to keep them at home is an alienating POS. 

tog redux's picture

Agreed. But in the absence of evidence that the father can't care for the child adequately, then his rights should not be taken away. Or vice versa. I bet if he wanted to keep them with him, she'd drag his ass to court so fast his head would spin.

Livingoutloud's picture

Monkeysee Your DH has common sense and isn't hung up on his rights and entitlement to see the kids even if jeopardizes theirs and everyobody else's safety. I am glad to hear that 

Ursula's picture

It seems to me that COVID-19 is the perfect excuse for an alienating HCBM to really do some damage to the relationship between dad and child.

Monkeysee's picture

I am starting to show symptoms of COVID-19. I am GRATEFUL that my stepsons have not been here, because it has protected them from catching it off me, should I actually have the virus. It’s true these are uncharted territories, and some HC parents will use this an an opportunity to alienate their children, which is horrible. But so is transmitting a highly infectious illness with an incubation period of up to 2 weeks.

I think it’s unfortunate the court has ruled this way. The court system is broken, just as many of our systems are, as we’re quickly learning. There are ways, in healthy parent child relationships to maintain contact with your children. My husband is FaceTiming his kids far more frequently than usual. He’s playing them on the Xbox with headsets, which he rarely does. We will make up the time after the fact. Please keep in mind than many, many, many military families go months on end without seeing their children, this is not an uncommon thing for many families, and I don’t see why health is being placed behind visitation.

I can see exceptions being made for situations where abuse or neglect is present, but for many families, where parents co-parent effectively and there is no alienation present, I believe the health & wellbeing of the masses outweigh the need to see ones children every other weekend. There ARE other options. Court ordered visitation will not magically prevent people from passing it between homes. 

tog redux's picture

No parent should decide unilaterally that the child won't go to the other parent's home, and that's what this case was about.

Monkeysee's picture

I’m not speaking about this case specifically, but in general terms. I also do think, given the severity of what’s happening right now, parents should be able to protect their kids from the other parents stupidity. 

tog redux's picture

I know you feel strongly about it - I personally am glad the court is not suspending visitation in a blanket fashion. That should be decided by the two parties involved.

Monkeysee's picture

We’ll agree to disagree, as per usual on this topic. I’m grateful my DH & his ex are seeing reason here. Too many parents are making decisions based on emotion. Fee fees won’t prevent the spread. 

tog redux's picture

I agree with this judge that it's not about "fee-fees". It's about what's healthy for children in many situations.  But either way, this woman did not have the right to make a unilateral decision on the matter and that's what the judge said.  The mother in this case was making the decision based on HER fee-fees.

Mominit's picture

Tog, I think that's the key for me too.  One parent does not get to play gate keeper and decide that s/he knows best.  That just leaves COVID as a possible weapon in many hands.  Divorced parents can either get along (and many do!) and make a decision to increase electronic interaction.  Or they can get along and set up robust rules around exchanges to ensure kids and families around them stay safe.

But no one gets to unilaterally say - you don't get to see your kids for the forseeable future. Some families (miiltary) are fine with being away from their children for a prolonged period of time.  Others are very much opposed.  Some are reasonable and co-parenting.  Others are alienating.  Basically this judge reinforced that law is not put aside during an emergency.  And kids still have the rights to support of both their parents.  It stops every CP from becoming a judge for the duration of the crisis.

As with every day - you have to proved high possibility of neglect or harm, not just allege them and unilaterally move.  The judge clearly said that IF the mother could prove specific risks and specific refuals to try to keep the social distancing rules he would entertain her specific complaints.  But no, he will not remove rights based on her nonspecfic preference/fears of what could happen.

tog redux's picture

Exactly. And it also depends a lot of where they live - not every area is on lockdown and some areas still have only a mild spread of the illness.

And I will say, we all should be concerned - but it is also possible to have way too MUCH fear, and that's "fee-fees" too - and it shouldn't be used to take the other parent's time away with out a lot of consideration.

Trying to Stepmom's picture

 parents should be able to protect their kids from the other parents stupidity. 

This exactly! I don't think the courts should shut down visitations, but when one parent is being careless, the other parent should be able to say "nope, not happening."

I blogged about this too, because BM (CP) has been allowing SD to have friends over. DH and I didn't think it would be smart having SD over , especially with a baby in our house. DH did explain to SD in so many terms that her and her friends might seem healthy but who know who her friends have been around. You can still spread it without knowing you have it. 

DH actually suggested that we drive to BM's house so we can see SD. We would stay in the car and SD would stay on the sidewalk. She scoffed at the idea at first but then warmed up to the idea. I think it's a little ridiculous but I also get it. And am also not sure I can trust DH's willpower to not let her into the car if I didn't go. 

Aniki's picture

Monkey, prayers you do NOT have it. If you do, that it's mild and you make a full recovery.

Mominit's picture

Hoping you're feeling better quickly!

Monkeysee's picture

Thanks Aniki, symptoms are mild & I’m hoping I’m just fighting off a normal bug! 

tog redux's picture

Exactly. BM here would have totally refused to send SS over and used this pandemic as an excuse - while she did nothing to follow any of the recommendations regarding social distancing.

If both parties agree on the child staying in one home, that's fantastic. But if they don't, then one party doesn't get to make the unilateral decison based on their feelings.

shamds's picture

and they’ve made an agreement with bio mum that child stays put with her and they will re-evaluate at a later date but reality is not alot of divorced parents are on amicable terms so its great to see a judge making that rule.

in australia I don’t know how his ruling would work because the police are handing out infringements for several thousand dollars for people not following self isolation mandated by the govt as mandatory so it’s tricky here because we haven’t seen anything in the news about it.

Livingoutloud's picture

Would you be ok with your children transported back and forth during pandemics because daddy insists he must see these kids now? I don't think so 

shamds's picture

When you have kids you both have an equal right to the kids and to make decisions together.

in my case my husband is stuck overseas working in essential services and i am at home with an almost 3yr old and 4 year old so i do not have to worry about shuffling my kids around.

that said even if i were with hubby now in his country, there isa risk he could get it because of staff in banking sector in physical contact although the risk is small its still there but I wouldn’t tell hubby to stop work.

if you want to make executive decisions as a mother, get an anonymous sperm donor from a sperm bank but if you decided to have kids with a man, pandemic or not you don’t get to justify parental alienation with a covid-19 pandemic no matter how you try to word it. 

Unless you have hard evidence the other bio parent or family members are not observing mandatory quarrantine/self isolation etc, you don’t get to justify “i need to keep the kids for their safety because of covid”

what happens if both bio mum and the dad are in self isolation and all the dad needs to do is get in his car and drive straight to exwife’s home to pick up the kids and straight back to his house and still maintain self isolation, then your justification to keep the kids indefinitely for months has no value... its a cheap shot to alienate kids and you are attempting to show kids daddy doesn’t care about your safety and health and using parental alienation to do that. Thats not ok ever!!

and before you judge me, my son was rushed in a priority 1 ambulance just a month ago when the outbreak was starting to happen in australia and after me recently miscarrying barely a few weeks prior, my husband got special permission from the ceo of his bank to visit us. He practiced all the precautions and wearing masks and hand sanitizer etc but he knew if he didn’t come then he might not get to see us for months and anything can happen then. My husband was in tears seeing our almost 3 yr old in hospital because he was admitted  with trouble breathing and oxygen levels very low. We were lucky hospital said it wasn’t coronavirus but a different viral bug doing the rounds. We got discharged later that evening after several rounds of ventolin and oxygen.

it would never even cross my mind to say to hubby “no you stay there and don’t dare come see my kid!!” Thats not my call to make... because i know hubby didn’t and wouldn’t intentionally come see us if he were sick and potentially high risk.

ITB2012's picture

The parents already trying PAS against the other one using this pandemic to their advantage. I think that's why that judges statements were worded carefully, so as not to enable that.

If adults ever needed a time to grow up and step up, it's now.

tog redux's picture

Right. Saying NO visitation should take place right now is not the answer to this situation.

Livingoutloud's picture

Some people hate their exes more than their love their children. Most sane people would put safety and health of their children first.

My ex is a very involved parent and we co parented wonderfully, him and DD are very close. I cannot imagine him insisting we transport DD back and forth during pandemics because "daddykins has rights".  Both dad and judge are insane. Let's hope this kid isn't getting sick, all so daddy could stick it to BM. 

I haven't posted on here but DD and her fiancée are currently sick. According to their doctors (over the phone) symptoms are corona. They cannot  be tested unless they go to ER but doctor said if they can breathe ok not go to the hospital. If gets worse than it will be different story. Symptoms they have are: Fever. Cough. Extreme fatigue. He lost any sense of taste and she lost any sense of smell. Classic symptoms. Luckily their breath ok, they are in their early 30s 

In the light of that anyone who insist that daddies' rights trump people's safety during pandemics is insane. I get it people are biased because their DHs deal with alienated kids and evil BMs. But comn get your heads out of your a$$es. I'd not insist transporting anyone anywhere right now because my rights are so important during pandemics. 

It's crazy making 

Mominit's picture

And some people use this as a weapon.  And some people panic over the top.  The call is for thoughtful behaviour.

The judge didn't say enforce all visitation.  The judge didn't say panic immediately and keep everyone home.  No getting heads out of a$$es noted in his decision.

If you as a Mom are determined that the risk to the child exists in the transporting of children between houses under ALL circumstances, and then Dad insists on seeing the kids, I'm sure you'd be fine to say OK, but keep them there for the duration.  Just the same as you're saying he can't see them for the duration.

In my family, my eldest flew home from school and is at my sister's where she is self isolating for 2 weeks before she comes home.  We don't want the exposure to her younger siblilngs.  Once she's through those two weeks, she's welcome to come home. So I'm not saying ignore it.  In some cases separation FOR A DEFINED TIME makes sense  Indefinite separation of families does not always makes sense. 

I think the judge got it right. .  And children need the support of both parents.  It's up to the parents to make it safe. Be sensible, but don't panic.



Livingoutloud's picture

So dad normally only sees kids every other weekend, you are now saying that if dad insists to see them now then BM should ship kids to him and he should keep them for the duration of pandemics.

So according to you it's ok for dad to keep the kids full time now because it's not safe to transport them 

at the same time you are stating that it's wrong for mom to keep them full time during pandemics and it's not ok for dad to skip 4 days a month. 

  By your logic if it's ok for dad to insist on seeing kids because he wants them, BM should be just as petty then and insist he must ship them back after the visitation because she has her rights.

 So where is the logic here? 

tog redux's picture

Has your local government said all visitation between homes has to stop? Mine hasn't. They've shut down schools, and restaurants and bars and told us to only have essential travel, which by the way, includes the liquor store.

But no one has said kids can't go between homes except a few people on Steptalk.

And yes, BM should follow the CO until she is told she doesn't have to. And in fact, she was told she DID have to.

Willow2010's picture

Tog...Texas AG actually sent a letter stating that custody should remain as court ordered.

Mominit's picture

That was proactive!  Sure takes some of the ambiguity and hostility out of the equation quickly!

tog redux's picture

From an attorney's webpage:"As noted, “New York on PAUSE” does not mandate that we all stay isolated to our homes.  Because of this, it means business as usual as it relates to your Child Custody Order or Agreement and all exchanges and transitions of your children should continue to take place"

shamds's picture

Members of dads household. He just needs to get in his car and drive to ex’s house for kids to get in his car and drive right back to his house and maintain his household self isolation. Where are these kids gonna get coronavirus  then? Is it magically in the air on the highway being sucked into the car?


Mominit's picture

Not at all what I said it!

What I said (actually what the judge said) is it should be agreed.  No unilateral decisioins that only ONE parent is important right now.  In case of disagreement, the CO stands and people should do what is necessary to mitigate any risks.  If Mom doesn't feel that's an option and that travel back and forth is impossible, then (just as a NCP can) she can refuse to take them back after a visit with Dad.  Either to protect her household, or because she thinks that's the only way to protect the children.

My only point in posing this is that up until now we've all wondered what the courts would say.  I thought it interesting that the courts have already heard their first case, and here's how it turned out.

Livingoutloud's picture

I see. Realistically if parents could agree on how things should be handled they'd likely still be married.

Understandably courts got involved and judge's ruling stands. CO has to be followed now by shipping kids back and forth contradicting common sense 

My point was that the reasonable father would agree to wait a month and at least see if things improve and forgo his 4 days of visitation (communicate with kids in other methods, not seeing kids doesn't mean can't communicate) for the safety of their children.

Unreasonable father would argue with BM tooth and nail that his rights are more important than children's safety. Hence it all ends up in court. Ideally ex spouses get along and put their egos aside. Realistically it's clearly not what's happening.  Sure judge says they must agree. Well they don't agree because dad insists he must see them now when in most areas people shouldn't even go outside unless they must. 

we can agree to disagree.  

tog redux's picture

BM took HIM to court to insist he not have visitation. Who knows if she even asked his opinion before she filed?

Livingoutloud's picture

We don't. But we also don't know if the father is responsible enough to maintain proper measures so BM had to do something about it. 

Yet we are automatically think  BM is in a wrong even though we have tons of blogs (regardless if blogs get deleted)about stupid selfish BMs wanting to continue visitations sending kids to dad instead of keeping them at home. Now those same SMs now argue how BMs are in the wrong by not wanting to send kids. Com'n. It's ridiculous. Can't win.

We know all well that many members hate no matter what any BM does and defend anything men do, no matter what exactly these people do and who these people are 

tog redux's picture

Yes, I think BM is wrong, and the judge does too. So why are you feeling you know more than a judge who heard the case? I assume he/she asked about the father's home.

And I am the primary person arguing this, and I never said the SMs should not have their skids in their home, so I don't know why you keep saying that to me.  I think kids should go between their homes as usual, until someone with an actual degree in epidemiology says they should not.

Livingoutloud's picture

I am pretty sure court wouldn't be needed if dad agreed to skip visitation for a bit. But I understand we have to follow court orders. Obviously if judge said so, BM must ship kids to dads.

 I just honestly find it funny how people on this thread argue that kids must continue visitations because BM doesn't want to send kids and yet same people argue on different threads that kids must not continue visitations during pandemics because BM wants to send kids.

I just read another blog today where people were livid that BM wants to continue sending kids to visitation and they were all adamant that visitation needs to be on hold during shut down for everyone's safety. 

It's hilarious. 

shamds's picture

that a child should not go to another bio parents home and failed to recognise that they maybe in self isolation too. You just said pandemic justified you keeping the kids in your home indefinitely. Thats not ok its just a cheap shot at dads like they aren’t important and that a majority do not have their kids best interests and health at heart

Mominit's picture

Actually, I agree!  Reasonable parents would work together.  In this case BM was saying no visitation until it's all over...regardless of how long that takes . That doesn't sound like someone who's trying to be reasonable.  Now that she knows she doesn't have that absolute power, I wonder if they are finding a better compromise?  Maybe he does skip one visit (which means he's away from them for a month!).  But then they go to stay with him for a week or two (because once exposed they may as well make the best of it).

Once the power to act unilaterally is removed, I wonder if cooler heads will prevail.

tog redux's picture

Exactly, BM is the unreasonable one, not the father. He's unreasonable because he wants to not have BM take away his parenting time unilaterally?

Livingoutloud's picture

Suspend (temporarily) kids going back and forth between houses due to pandemics isn't terminating anyone's rights.

And again you are saying that his parental rights trump everything. In this case some members argue that dad's rights are more important than children's safety. If it was my child and I saw her every other weekend, I'd say let's skip a month and let me Skype or face time with kids. 

But then again why is dad only seeing kids 4 days a month? Clearly they don't have BM centered court system. Does dad not want more? His house isn't suitable for more? If he is adamant about his rights, why not see kids more than 4 days a month?

Makes one wonder how much of all this is due to dad wanting to stick it to BM and be argumentative rather than sudden desire to see the kids 

tog redux's picture

Again, BM took him back to court, he didn't take her there.  Why is he being blamed for that? And who knows why he has every two weeks, I have no idea. Canada generally is very woman-biased, so maybe he got lucky and got a judge who wasn't.

I am saying that unless the government decides he can't have his parenting time, he's entitled to it. And that BM was told that she has no right to stop his visitation. And that no epidemiologist, as far as I know, has said that kids going between homes is a terrible thing.

So as far as I can tell, this is only your opinion that this is an awful, terrible thing to do, and the judge doesn't share that opinion. 


Livingoutloud's picture

Clearly this isn't only my opinion. 

yes dad is entitled to seeing the kids, sadly even if his entitlement could cause health problems and jeopardize everyone's safety and go against any kind of common sense. But he just gotta have it because he is entitled to it.

That's the whole point I am trying to make. 

Willow2010's picture

I have 3 different thoughts on this.  As a stepparent...I would absolutely suggest that SS stay with BM.  As a CP...I would have left it up to the NCP if he wanted to take his parenting time or not.  As a grandma... I think the custody schedule should be in place.   

IMHO...In this case, you will have a lot of BMs use this as an excuse to screw over the dad.  You will also have a lot of SMs say that custody should be discontinued for now.  Not gonna lie...I probably would have.  lol

tog redux's picture

Agreed. And a lot of armchair epidemiologists who feel they have the corner on truth. Our public health director hasn't mentioned kids moving between homes. I'm sure if it was an urgent risk, he'd have done so.

Willow2010's picture

So this is how to solve if one of the parents is dead set against letting the kids move back and forth between houses...then let the other parent keep the kid until it is over.

Problem solved.  

Livingoutloud's picture

That's an option. We will just have to see if dads and SMS want kids full time versus 4 days a month. 

I find it funny how SMs on here are livid that BMs send kids to dads house during pandemics and now they are livid that some random BM on the Internet doesn't want to send the kids. You just can't win with some people 

just general bias and not objective look at the situation. If it's CP snd BM then no matter what she does: sends kids or doesn't, she is to blame 

tog redux's picture

I sure as hell wasn't livid about it. I think it should go on as ordered unless both parties agree to do it otherwise.

Ursula's picture

Ahhh...this reminds me of when BM insisted that SD should be in one home primarily because she needed stability.  When DH said that was fine and that he would be happy to have SD in his home primarily since BM was so confident it was best for her, guess what her answer was lol.

CompletelyPuzzled's picture

If you read the custody subreddit on reddit, there are so many threads about this.  Several state courts have ruled that visitation continues despite the pandemic.  In my case, mostly exH and his wife live 5 mins away.  We live in the same community.  They work from home and so do DH and I.  We are all strictly practicing social distancing so we are following our court order.  I can see why some people are worried if one house is not doing it or if one parent is working in a high risk occupation.  But I also think the courts have to weigh that against the fact that some parents will use it as an excuse to restrict visitation with the other parent.  Everyone's circumstances are different so there is no correct answer.

CompletelyPuzzled's picture

If you read the custody subreddit on reddit, there are so many threads about this.  Several state courts have ruled that visitation continues despite the pandemic.  In my case, my exH and his wife live 5 mins away.  We live in the same community.  They work from home and so do DH and I.  We are all strictly practicing social distancing so we are following our court order.  I can see why some people are worried if one house is not doing it or if one parent is working in a high risk occupation.  But I also think the courts have to weigh that against the fact that some parents will use it as an excuse to restrict visitation with the other parent.  Everyone's circumstances are different so there is no correct answer.

Ashleytenorio17's picture

Lol some one should explain that to BM who has abandoned SAd because her job is "essential" according to her SD only needs one parent which is DH 

Livingoutloud's picture

Your SD doesn't live with dad though. She lives with relatives. So clearly it appears that SD doesn't need either parent as she doesn't live with any of them. 

Sweet T's picture

I am just thank ful my ex let our son stay home as we are high risk and have been home for 2 weeks. 


I would give him anything he wants visitation wise when this is done. 

Odd thing is he can call or text whenever he wants and BS12 only hears from him via text once in a while. 


Livingoutloud's picture

Very smart! Not sending kids back and forth is a very smart move