Child custody cases: Karnataka High Court suggests replacing 'visitation' with 'parenting time'

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday expressed the need for change in the terminology employed in judicial proceedings that concern child custody.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti questioned how a trial court had passed an order that allowed the father to visit the child on weekends for 3-4 hours, 50% of school vacations and 30 minutes of call time on WhatsApp between 7:30 to 8:30 PM.

Justice Kanneganti also said that courts must replace the phrase 'visitation time' with 'parenting time'.

"Courts often use the word "visitation" to describe the time the child spends with a parent who is a non-custodial parent. The term is familiar, but it carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is part of the child's life while the other merely visits. A child should not be made to understand the relationship through the word "visitation," which is used for someone who arrives and leaves as a guest. Children read the conduct of adults and sometimes the words of Courts to understand where they belong. Calling it parenting time recognizes a simple truth that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child."

The Court further appealed to advocates in custody cases to cooperate in such cases.

"The same aggression that we see in the parties, let it not be in the advocates, lets all together resolve their problems. Let's not create further problems with them."

The couple had separated since 2017 and the 9-year-old child was in the custody of the mother. The father had last seen the child when he was 3 months old. A family court had granted divorce and an order in favour of the wife in a domestic violence case.

Under these circumstances, a trial court had allowed the father to meet the child on weekends between 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM, 50% of the summer, winter, Dasara, Deepavali vacations and calls between 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM on alternate days.

The mother had approached the High Court to quash the order passed by the trial court.

The Court appreciated the trial court having followed a joint parenting plan directed by the Karnataka High Court. However, it said that the plan was to be applied after weighing the facts and circumstances of every individual case.

"This approach of the Courts is not in the interest of the child. Particularly, in family disputes and child custody matters, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. As the Courts are dealing with the emotions, lives of parents and children, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case where the father is regularly in touch with the boy and the Court passes an order, it is a different case."

The Court said that it would have to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction and be concerned with the welfare of the child rather than the couple's dispute.

"In this case, the custodial parent is the mother. Whatever are the disputes between the parties, the boy needs to have the love and affection of both the parents. It is the duty of the Court in the welfare of the Child to see that how this can be worked out. But not in such a hasty manner."

The Court said that it was not practical of the trial court to have allocated the father half an hour to speak with the child as it would compel the child to sit. While staying the trial court order permitting the father parenting time of 50% of the child's vacations, the Court said that the father could have parenting time on two days from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

The wife was represented by Advocate Anita Abraham.

The husband was represented by Advocate Anushree A.