The voluntary isolation suggested by the government in an attempt to curb the impact of COVID-19 represents is a challenge for families where parents are separated, who are in a quandary as to how to handle visitation schedules.
The health measures put in place locally on March 23 do not yet constitute mandatory quarantine. Yet both the government and specialists are urging the population to take isolation measures so as to attenuate COVID-19 propagation.
Added to the difficulties that this appeal can mean for the economy and the job market is the situation of families where parents with children in common are separated and have an existing visitation schedule. Doubts as to how to proceed in this situation are a challenge for parents.
Other countries, where isolation is mandatory, have provided specific solutions for these problems. Thus, in Argentina, a resolution issued on March 20, 2020 provides for suspension of visitation schedules, prioritizing the legal right to health over visitation rights, with exceptions established for the case where one of the parents has to work outside the home. In turn, Spain, where a “state of alarm” was declared, has established that persons may circulate on public streets in order to –among other very limited reasons—transfer and provide assistance to minors, which is interpreted by Spanish legal experts as maintaining scheduled visitation.
Uruguay does not currently have a legal solution expressly suspending or maintaining rulings or court-approved compromises on visitation. Hence it is the parents who must responsibly come to agreement so as to prioritize their children and their children’s rights.
It is a time to set differences aside and to find creative solutions that make it possible to protect the health of children and their families, as well as to maintain family ties.
Each family’s specific situation will be determinant in this. Having one parents who has to work outside the home, the risk of the children’s exposure because of their parents’ work (if one or both parents are health care workers, for example), or the fact that they live with elderly or immunocompromised persons, are all relevant elements to assess when defining visits and communication in this exceptional period.
All innovative solutions are welcome: changing the agreed schedule, so that children do not move around so much, solutions involving fewer days but longer hours, or changing to a shared-custody system of one week with each parent during the health emergency, are all ideas that may work.
But there must be willingness, flexibility and good faith of the part of both parents. These are exceptional times, and the solutions must also be exceptional.
If there is no agreement, it will be the courts that will have to decide. But in a period of judicial holidays due to the health emergency, where courts are operating only exceptionally, the solution will not necessarily get here in time.
The current exceptional situation also demands openness of the Judiciary in general, and of judges in particular, to find solutions adapted to each case, with a certain swiftness, in order to find a balance between protecting health and the rights of children to maintain ties to their parents.
Technological means have taken on even more relevance for maintaining contact. In no case can the current circumstances be allowed to isolate children from their families. It is the parents’ responsibility to allow regular, quality communications –even when in-person visits are fewer, or change, or even are suspended—so that children’s rights are not violated.