Stay-Home Orders Don't Impact Child Custody Plans, High Court Orders
Under Texas cities' stay-home orders, which restrict residents' travel for unapproved purposes, ex-spouses who share child custody were confused about whether they could still take their child back and forth for visitations. The Texas Supreme Court has answered the question: Yes.
March 25, 2020 at 12:02 PM
3 minute read
When stay-home orders went into effect Tuesday in Texas' largest metro areas, it stirred confusion among divorced parents who share custody of their children.
Stay-home orders have required Texans to remain at home, except if they need to go out for groceries, medication or health care appointments. People can't go into work unless they are in certain essential jobs, although anyone can work from home. The stay-home orders restrict travel for unapproved purposes.
That's why ex-spouses didn't know if they were allowed to travel to bring their children back and forth to the other parent.
"There was confusion about whether the stay-at-home order trumped or the court order trumped," said Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann. "We just issued another clarification that the custody order is the one that governs the situation."
The high court issued an emergency order on Tuesday that applies to possession schedules under suits affecting the parent-child relationship. The order says that a person's right to possession of and access to a child will still be decided under the parents' court-ordered possession schedule.
"Possession of and access to a child shall not be affected by any shelter-in-place order or other order restricting movement issued by a governmental entity that arises from an epidemic or pandemic, including what is commonly referred to as the COVID-19 pandemic," the order said.
Lehrmann noted that attorneys and judges who were concerned about the issue have been contacting the Texas Office of Court Administration, the Texas Children's Commission and the State Bar of Texas Family Law Counsel. That's how the high court knew to take action.
"When we figured out it's an issue that's really causing some serious challenges for families, then we conferenced," Lehrmann explained. "We've been conferencing daily on emergency issues that are coming up."
This is the second emergency order that the Supreme Court has issued to clarify a family law issue dealing with child custody. Many school districts closed because of COVID-19 by announcing they were "extending spring break." Parents sharing custody of a child were in dispute about whether it meant one of them got to keep a child longer, or if they had to return the child as normal. The high court determined the originally published school schedule should control the return of the child.
Related story:
As COVID-19 Disrupts Spring Break, Texas Supreme Court Resolves a Key Custody Dispute
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllEversheds Sutherland Adds Hunton Andrews Energy Lawyer With Cross-Border Experience
3 minute readEx-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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