When “The End” is not the end: COVID Edition

As family law attorneys, we all know the struggle of post-decree litigation, resulting from a change in residence, a parent wanting to move or when a parent is not complying with financial support as ordered by the Court. 

Now, thanks to a small event, which swept not only the nation, but the world, we have found ourselves in the familiar arena of post-decree litigation but in the unexplored realm of COVID-19 and all the issues that arise from it.  As participants in the COVID-19 era of family litigation, we have seen many issues arise, such as remote learning, mask enforcement, parenting time, not only modification to a schedule, but also make up time, holiday and vacation time as well as the question of whether parenting time should occur at all due to concerns of exposure. As if these were insufficient issues presented, within the last year, we have seen the most controversial issue of all: vaccination, not only for the children, but also for the parents. 

Since the start of the pandemic, the whole world adjusted, to varying degrees, and with it, the court system and the beginning of the Zoom. We have all become familiar with Zoom court these last two (2) years, the procedural change to Court rules, the new courtroom protocol for Zoom, all from the comfort of our homes. Despite both the courtrooms and the participants growing accustomed to remote Zoom court, the legal field itself has not quite adapted to the current times as, we have been unable to grasp an understanding, consistency or guidance when it comes to issues related to COVID because just as we have under control when to test, or whether parenting time should happen, a new question arises for us to address with families. 

Some common scenarios we came across during the last eighteen (18) months of COVID include, what about the risk of exposure if Mom takes the child to a classmate’s birthday party?, or “Dad took our son to Disney and exposed our child”; or finding out one parent was exposed and with the child in their possession, has to quarantine with the child, thereby affecting the other parent’s scheduled parenting time. 

Early in the pandemic, when our medical professionals were being cheered and applauded for being on the front lines of the pandemic, I came across a case where a mother used the father’s profession as an Emergency Room Doctor as a basis to suspend his parenting time for the risk of exposure to the virus and thereafter the child during his parenting time. Here, instead of the praise for the work being done, the mother used this as a basis to prevent the father from seeing the child. 

Since then, Courts have seen frequent issues and pleadings arise as to children and COVID, including most recently vaccinations for children, and previously, parents. In the matter mentioned above, the Court did not find that this was sufficient basis to suspend the father’s time. In August, a Cook County Judge, sua sponte, suspended the mother’s parenting time with the child due to her vaccination status and refusal to seek the vaccination for herself. The suspended time would remain in place until the mother produced proof of vaccination. The Court later vacated this decision and reinstated the mother’s parenting time. While the Court acted in what was believed to be the child’s best interests, limiting the child’s exposure, such cases demonstrate how, as practicing family law attorneys, the issue of vaccination truly affect us, how difficult it is to give recommendations or make decisions and the varying positions the Courts have taken, from making decisions on the issue, allocating the decision to the parents, or in some cases, granting sole decision-making power to one parent on this isolated issue. 

While such issues have caused a divide among parents regarding COVID, it has also caused parents the opportunity to coparent better, especially as children participated, and continue to participate, in remote learning. Parents have had to communicate better with each other and cooperate in order to manage remote learning, demonstrating that parents can still coparent for the benefit of their child. 

With the world’s pattern of rising to normality and returning to COVID protocol, an issue we have additionally seen questions in the courts has been the issue of wearing masks, especially in schools, with the return to in-person learning. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued a state-wide mask mandate, which made wearing a mask in indoor spaces, such as restaurants, grocery stores and school, required. 

Once the executive order went into effect, over 150 school districts across the country took to the courts to challenge the mask mandate for students to wear in school, with a Sangamon County Judge, Judge Raylene Grischow, issuing a temporary restraining order which no longer requires students to wear a mask to school, making it recommended. On the contrary, masks continue to be required in Chicago Public Schools, which create discrepancies across the different districts, which are spread across different counties, which impacts the Courts in different ways. While this temporary restraining order is on appeal, as family law attorneys, it falls onto us to try and navigate the uncertainties while representing our clients to the best of our abilities. 

While the pandemic unfortunately continues, and the cases rise and fall at different times, we face different issues in our family law cases. We will continue to stay diligent and try to prioritize the children’s safety among all else. 

The Law Office of Erin M. Wilson has the talent, skills, and ability to help the choppy waters of COVID related issues, both through litigation, but also through discussions to help parents come together to truly communicate, listen and make the best decisions for the child during these COVID times.

NOTICE: This blog is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as providing legal advice. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding this blog post.