Parenting Plans During an Unprecedented Pandemic
The current COVID-19 global pandemic has created unique challenges for all of us with significant impact to those divorced/separated parents attempting to follow their parenting plan or time-sharing schedules, and has caused much confusion when making the decision to rigidly follow the stay-at-home restrictions instituted in an area, or the terms of a parenting plan/court order.
April 08, 2020 at 01:13 PM
4 minute read
The current COVID-19 global pandemic has created unique challenges for all of us with significant impact to those divorced/separated parents attempting to follow their parenting plan or time-sharing schedules, and has caused much confusion when making the decision to rigidly follow the stay-at-home restrictions instituted in an area, or the terms of a parenting plan/court order.
While there are some parents that are attempting to utilize the provisions set forth in local stay-at-home orders to permit the retention of their children during this pandemic, in direct contravention of their parenting plans, we have not found any authority to support such position in the Broward County, Florida order.
Because many of the governmental stay-at-home orders that have recently gone into effect both nationally and internationally have failed to specifically address whether or not an exception is carved out for children to freely move between the residences of their separated parents during the pandemic, parents are left confused, bewildered and fearful that they may not see their children for an indefinite period of time; or conversely, perhaps they will be forced to be the sole caretaker for their children for an unidentified period of time.
Several state Supreme Courts, including Michigan and California, have issued statements ordering that all parenting time-sharing orders are to be followed throughout any government restrictions on travel or freedom of movement.
After significant confusion to parents in reports from the U.K. government, U.K. Minister Michael Gove has now made it publicly clear that children who split their time between their separated/divorced parents' homes in the United Kingdom, are free to continue to move between the residences during any governmentally mandated lockdown period.
France has similarly permitted the movement of parents during their lockdown to facilitate time-sharing exchanges of their minor children.
However, there have been reports of the police in Spain, a country facing some of the strictest lockdown measures (including the prevention of outdoor exercising), are enforcing the lockdown against separated/divorced parents leaving their homes to exchange their minor children.
Our best advice is to make every effort to utilize this worldwide, unprecedented, pandemic to bridge some of the distance between you and your co-parent, despite what may have been years of combativeness and perhaps, litigation. This is an extremely challenging time for every family, even those intact families living under one roof. Try to be mindful of what is best for your children during what is likely a very scary and overwhelming time for them. Perhaps continuing to institute as much routine and stability, including mealtimes, academics and play, along with adhering to the time-sharing schedule that your children have come to anticipate, as much as possible, is best and most comforting to their young minds. Be flexible. If you legitimately believe that exchanging your children with your co-parent will be to the child's detriment, perhaps because your co-parent refuses to adhere to, or is unable to adhere to the recommendations of the CDC, then try to be creative to ensure continuous remote access. Set up frequent, regular and ongoing opportunities for your child and co-parent to communicate via FaceTime, Zoom, Skype or the like. Let the other parent come and visit the children from outside your residence, ensuring social distancing. If allowable in your area, and suitable for your aged children, meet in a public place, park six feet apart and remain in your vehicles at all times with the windows down so the children can see their other parent face-to-face and know they are OK.
In short, absent specific written governmental prohibitions, if you have a parenting plan or a court order in place, follow it; if you have an informal time-sharing schedule that you have been following, continue to follow it. If you have legitimate and justifiable fears that your co-parent will not follow the social-distancing and protective practices recommended by governmental bodies and accordingly may risk exposure to the children, then we recommend contacting an experienced family law practitioner so that your personal situation can be properly assessed, before you unilaterally disregard the terms of your agreement or prior court order and risk penalties for the same.
Further guidance from the American Association of Matrimonial Lawyers can be found here: Seven Guidelines for Divorced/Separated Parents with Children During Pandemic.
Natalie Kay is a partner with Kelley Kronenberg in Davie, Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250