.webp)
As a general matter, parties should always comply with the terms of a court order, regardless of how difficult or challenging compliance might happen to be. In some instances, compliance may be particularly challenging, if not nearly impossible, and so the law naturally takes account of this reality. During the COVID-19 (or “coronavirus”) pandemic, for instance, many unprecedented challenges emerged, and many parents with custody orders experienced major difficulties complying with preexisting court orders. This is precisely what occurred in the case of Alexander v. Alexander (2021).
As this case shows, under certain circumstances, the court will give deference to parents who make tough decisions for the betterment of their child. In other words, when a parent does something which violates the terms of a custody order, but that parent’s decision making was actually “in the child’s best interests,” then that parent won’t necessarily be penalized; and, the other parent might not be allowed “make up parenting time” or something similar.
Let’s examine this case in more detail.
Facts of the Case
The parents in this case were originally married back in 2004. The couple had a son in 2006, and then in 2014 the marriage was officially ended. Since 2014, the parties were in and out of court to settle various custody related issues. In 2019, these issues were essentially resolved when the mother’s counter-motion for sole legal and primary physical custody was granted. Subsequently, the parties encountered myriad difficulties associated with permitting the father to have his court mandated access to the son in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Basically, during the height of the pandemic, the mother refused to allow the father to have parenting time because of the risks posed by COVID-19.
The mother made attempts to accommodate the father’s desire for contact by permitting extended video chatting (“FaceTime”). The father, understandably upset, ultimately went back to court and made multiple requests. One of those requests (the central request of this later litigation) was granting the father “make up parenting time” because of the lost time which occurred during the pandemic.
Outcome & Discussion
Ultimately, the court ruled that the mother was not required to grant additional parenting time to the father in order to make up or reimburse him for lost time. As mentioned, as a general matter, court orders should be followed to the letter, but circumstances often turn up which make full compliance to the letter a practical impossibility. In this case, the mother had legitimate concerns about the health and safety of the child given the harsh risks presented by the coronavirus. Hence, her decision to deny the father the court allocated parenting time was actually in the best interests of the child, and consequently the court ruled that the lost time should be lost permanently, as opposed to made up with additional time in the future. This case sets an important precedent in this respect.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you want more information on parenting time modifications, parenting time in general, custody matters in general, or any other family law topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
