Karnataka High Court orders using ‘parenting time’ instead of ‘visitation’ in all child custody cases

The Karnataka High Court has directed family courts and courts handling Guardians and Wards Cases to use “parenting time” instead of “visitation.” The change applies when describing time spent by a child with a non-custodial parent. The court said language matters because it can shape how children understand family relationships.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said “visitation” can suggest that one parent belongs in the child’s life while the other only visits. By contrast, “parenting time” recognises that both parents remain parents, even when only one has custody. The court described this wording as more humane when access is restricted.

The Registrar General must issue a circular to courts. The new term must also appear in applications for a child’s custody. The court stressed that the terminology itself does not decide custody. It changes the language used around access and parental involvement.

“Parenting time” is the court’s preferred term for the time a child spends with a parent who does not have custody. It highlights continuing parental involvement. The phrase does not itself grant custody or determine how much access a parent receives. Those questions remain for the court to decide.

The court contrasted it with “visitation.” A visitation is commonly associated with someone arriving and leaving as a guest. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said that meaning can wrongly suggest that one parent is central to the child’s life while the other merely visits. “Parenting time” presents the relationship more accurately and humanely.

The distinction matters especially when courts place restrictions on access. Children notice adults’ conduct and may also notice the language used in court orders. Using “parenting time” can avoid describing a parent as an outsider. The High Court ordered the term in relevant proceedings and custody applications.

The direction is broad within the courts covered by the order. It applies to all family courts and all courts dealing with Guardians and Wards Cases. These courts must use “parenting time” when referring to a child’s time with a non-custodial parent. The change concerns language in proceedings, not the result of a custody dispute.

The High Court also directed the Registrar General to issue a circular to all courts. This is the mechanism for communicating the terminology change across the judicial system. The direction therefore reaches beyond the particular custody case heard by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti.

The term must be used in applications for a child’s custody as well. The article does not list other documents or proceedings beyond these applications and the specified courts. It also does not say that every court must change unrelated legal language. Its stated focus is custody, guardianship and access-related wording.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti said children use adults’ conduct and sometimes court language to understand where they belong. The word “visitation” may suggest that one parent is part of the child’s life while the other merely visits. That suggestion can make a continuing parental relationship seem temporary or secondary.

The court explained the concern through the ordinary meaning of visitation. A visitor is someone who arrives and leaves as a guest. Applying that word to a parent may give the child the wrong message about the parent’s place in the family. “Parenting time” avoids that guest-like implication.

The change is therefore about recognition and meaning, not automatic access. The court acknowledged that wording does not decide custody. But when access is restricted, it said “parenting” is more humane. The new language tells children that the non-custodial parent remains a parent, not an outsider merely allowed to visit.

In the article’s context, the non-custodial parent is the parent who does not have custody but spends time with the child. The article does not define custody in detail, but it clearly distinguishes the custodial parent from the parent whose access is being described. The High Court wants that access called “parenting time.”

That parent’s continuing role is recognised through time with the child. The court’s point is not that the non-custodial parent automatically receives unrestricted access. Courts may impose restrictions. Instead, the parent’s relationship should still be understood as parental, even when the parent does not live with or have custody of the child.

The wording is especially important for the child’s understanding of the relationship. “Visitation” can make the parent sound like a guest. “Parenting time” presents the parent as someone who continues to have a place in the child’s life. The order changes the description, while access remains subject to court decisions.

Changing “visitation” to “parenting time” changes the language used by courts and in custody applications. It does not determine which parent receives custody. The High Court expressly said that terminology does not decide questions of custody. Courts must still resolve custody disputes separately.

The change also does not remove restrictions on access to the child. The court recognised that access may be restricted when a court considers the circumstances. Its point was that, even in such cases, “parenting time” is a more humane description than “visitation.” The wording should not make a parent seem like a guest.

The practical effect is therefore symbolic and relational, rather than an automatic legal expansion of access. Courts must use the preferred term in the specified proceedings and applications. The underlying custody decision and any limits on contact remain governed by the court’s order. The article gives no indication that existing custody arrangements are automatically reopened.

When separated parents are in conflict, custody usually identifies which parent has primary care or decision-making responsibility. Guardianship concerns legal responsibility for the child’s welfare and important decisions. Parenting time concerns the child’s continuing time with the other parent. These roles can overlap, and a non-custodial parent can remain a parent.

For example, one parent may have custody while the other has scheduled time with the child. A court may set conditions or restrictions on that time. The Karnataka High Court’s key mechanism is linguistic: it directs courts to call this period “parenting time,” not “visitation.” The term avoids describing the parent as a guest.

The article does not give a detailed legal explanation of how custody and guardianship divide responsibility. It focuses on language in family courts, Guardians and Wards Cases, and custody applications. Its forward implication is that court wording should recognise continuing parenthood, while custody decisions and access restrictions remain matters for the court.