The Karnataka High Court has issued an interim directive requiring all family courts and courts hearing petitions under the Guardians and Wards Act to use the term 'parenting time' instead of 'visitation' when referring to periods a child spends with a non-custodial parent. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti made this order during a custody dispute involving a nine-year-old boy, observing that the language used in custody arrangements carries significant psychological weight for children.
The judge emphasized that children should not be made to view their relationship with a parent through terminology that suggests a temporary or peripheral connection. The word 'visitation' carries an unfortunate connotation—that one parent merely comes to visit, rather than engaging in substantive parenting responsibilities and maintaining a meaningful ongoing relationship.
Questioning Custody Arrangements Without Full Assessment
Beyond the terminology directive, Justice Kanneganti raised broader concerns about how custody orders are being formulated. The court questioned whether a 50 percent custody arrangement during the child's school vacations, combined with regular weekend access, could be imposed without first conducting a thorough assessment of the family's circumstances. Before such arrangements are finalized, courts must hear the child's views directly, understand the practical realities of the family situation, and determine whether the proposed arrangement actually serves the child's best interests.
This reflects a shift in judicial thinking about custody disputes. Rather than treating custody orders as administrative decisions to be made swiftly, the court is signaling that these determinations require careful, individualized examination. The focus moves away from rigid formulas toward a more nuanced understanding of what each child needs and what each family can realistically provide.
The Psychology of Language in Family Law
The directive to replace 'visitation' with 'parenting time' addresses a subtle but important aspect of family law practice. Language shapes perception, particularly for children navigating family separation. When a child hears that they will have 'parenting time' with a parent, the term acknowledges that both parents are engaged in the actual work of raising the child, even if one parent does not have primary custody.
This terminology change aligns with evolving research in child psychology and family dynamics. Courts increasingly recognize that children benefit from maintaining strong relationships with both parents, and that language reflecting this reality can support healthier family functioning. The shift from 'visitation' to 'parenting time' is therefore not merely semantic—it represents a change in how courts conceptualize the role of the non-custodial parent.
Implications for Family Court Practice
The interim directive will require family courts across Karnataka to audit their existing language and adjust how they frame custody orders going forward. Judges, court staff, and legal practitioners will need to adopt consistent terminology when drafting orders, recording proceedings, and communicating with families about custody arrangements.
This change may also prompt courts to reconsider how they structure custody determinations more broadly. If courts are being asked to use language that reflects both parents' ongoing parenting roles, they may also need to reassess whether their substantive custody decisions truly account for the child's relationship with both parents and whether those decisions are grounded in a thorough evaluation of the child's best interests.
The directive comes at a time when family courts in India are increasingly expected to apply the best interests of the child standard rigorously. The Supreme Court and high courts have repeatedly emphasized that this standard requires more than applying a formula or following precedent; it demands individualized assessment of each child's needs, the capacity of each parent to meet those needs, and the practical feasibility of any proposed arrangement.
The Broader Context of Custody Disputes
Custody disputes often involve significant emotional stakes for all parties. Parents fear losing connection with their children, children worry about abandonment or divided loyalty, and courts must balance competing interests while prioritizing the child's welfare. Language used in these proceedings can either reinforce healthy family dynamics or inadvertently undermine them.
Justice Kanneganti's emphasis on assessing family circumstances and the child's views before imposing custody arrangements reflects this understanding. Rather than treating custody as a matter to be resolved quickly through standard formulas, the court is directing that each case receive individualized attention. This requires judges to look beyond the legal arguments presented by parents and their lawyers to understand the actual family situation, the child's needs and preferences, and what arrangement will realistically work.
The nine-year-old boy at the center of this case is old enough to have meaningful preferences about his time with each parent, yet young enough that those preferences require careful interpretation and consideration. A court must understand not just what the child says he wants, but why, and whether that preference reflects his genuine best interests or has been influenced by loyalty conflicts or other pressures.
Implementation and Future Cases
Family courts in Karnataka will now operate under this directive when handling custody matters. Judges will need to ensure that orders use 'parenting time' consistently when referring to the non-custodial parent's access. The court's questioning of whether custody arrangements can be imposed without full assessment suggests that judges should expect to conduct more thorough inquiries into family circumstances before finalizing orders.
This may mean longer proceedings in some cases, as courts take time to gather information about the child, the parents, and the family's practical situation. It may also mean that some custody arrangements initially proposed by parents or suggested by conventional practice will be rejected as inadequate or unsuitable once subjected to this more rigorous scrutiny.
The directive also sends a signal to legal practitioners that custody cases require careful preparation. Lawyers representing parents will need to gather evidence about family circumstances, the child's needs and preferences, and the practical feasibility of proposed arrangements. They cannot rely on standard formulations or assume that courts will approve conventional custody divisions without question.
For children and families in Karnataka, this shift may result in custody arrangements that more accurately reflect their actual needs and capabilities. By insisting on thorough assessment and using language that acknowledges both parents' ongoing roles, courts can help create custody arrangements that support children's wellbeing and maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, even after separation or divorce.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.