Is Virtual Visitation the New Normal?

 

This guest post is from Naomi Bach, Regent Law 2L & Family Law student:

In the age of FaceTime, Zoom, and texting, virtual visitation is becoming more than a temporary solution. But what does that mean for co-parenting, court orders, and the parent-child relationship?

Virtual visitation is a court-sanctioned digital communication between a noncustodial parent and their child. This can include video calls, text messaging, social media interaction, email and chat, even shared digital activities (like playing a game together online). It’s not a replacement for physical custody, but a way to enhance and maintain connection – especially when geography work schedules, or health reasons get in the way. A few states, including Texas, have enacted laws or court rulings that address or allow for virtual visitation as part of parenting plans.  These statutes are designed to encourage frequent and meaningful contact with both parents, and virtual tools are increasingly seen as a way to support that goal. Courts often consider virtual visitation when one parent relocates (out of state or long distance), a parent is incarcerated or deployed, there are supervised visitation needs, physical visitation is limited due to illness or safety concerns. In Texas, courts can order virtual visitation under Texas Family Code § 153.015, provided it's in the best interest of the child and doesn’t interfere with school or other parenting time.

There are pros and cons to this system. The pros of virtual visitation are that it can keep bonds strong between visits, it adds flexibility for long-distance or busy parents, it can reduce conflict by offering neutral interaction spaces, it allows for daily contact (such as a bedtime story, help with homework, or a quick goodnight message), and encourages consistency and routine in the child's relationship with both parents. There are challenges and concerns to virtual visitation as well. Some worry it can become a substitute for real parent time. Privacy and safety concerns arise if communication is unsupervised. Tech issues, poor internet access, or one parent who is not cooperating can create conflict. Virtual visits may not satisfy a child’s emotional need for physical presence. Courts must tread carefully not to let one parent "gatekeep" access.

Virtual communication and visitation is a great enhancement to a parent’s communication with their children as long as it doesn’t become a replacement. Post-pandemic, many courts have begun formally incorporating virtual visitation into parenting plans, sometimes even requiring parents to facilitate daily check-ins or weekend video calls. Judges often emphasize that digital contact should complement, not replace, regular physical parenting time. It can really help move a parent-child relationship toward being restored a bit more.

Lavender Marriages?

 

This guest post is from Aaron Wheeler, Regent Law Family Law student: 

Traditional marriage is on the decline. The Institute of Family Studies analyzed data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau from 1985 to present-day and found that in 1985, around 15% of 25-year-old women and 30% of 25-year-old men had never married. In 2024, the percentage of “never married” 25-year-olds jumped to around 80% for both sexes.  This trend is similarly seen in those who are 35 and 45, revealing that marriage rates are falling for all ages.

 

Despite women (and men) growing disillusioned with the dating world, the need for marriage still exists.  Marriage provides a host of benefits that increase perceived well-being.  For women who recognize the value of marriage but are discouraged by a dating world dominated by dating apps and “rude, demeaning, [and] sometimes cloyingly pushy” straight men, James Grieg has offered a solution: try a lavender marriage. 

 

Lavender marriages are generally non-romantic marriages between a heterosexual woman and a homosexual man. Historically, lavender marriages were designed to primarily protect closeted gay men. But Grieg suggests that modern lavender marriages can be used by platonic friends to adopt some of the benefits inherent in traditional marriage, such as companionship and financial security, as well as new benefits like “fashion advice.”  Citing studies that suggest romantic love is “doomed to fade,” Grieg argues that almost all traditional marriages essentially evolve into relationships like lavender marriages, where the couple remains together for companionship and not sexual attraction. Lavender marriages are, in the long run, indistinguishable from traditional marriages, believes Grieg. 

 

Grieg’s conception of male-female relationships through lavender marriages may seem strange, but his argument echoes a core truth deeply held within all humanity: “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Genesis 2:18. Humans are designed to be partners. If they do not partner with God or a loving spouse in traditional marriage, they might seek a partner elsewhere. But these lavender marriages fail to provide the true partnership oneness that is inherent in committed, traditional, biblically designed marriage. Non-romantic lavender marriages reduce marriage to an economic and social transaction when husband and wife exist to “become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. This oneness is absent when spouses are permitted to find romantic and sexual partners outside of the marriage. If one spouse later finds someone they truly want to marry, the spouses must first divorce their “bestie.” These lavender marriages are simply security measures: providing temporary safety and stability—without oneness, commitment, or even love—until something better comes along.  While they may seem wise, they are really simply a façade trying to restore the benefits of marriage, rather than creating true family restoration.

Why We Should Return to Traditional Gender Roles

 

This guest post is courtesy of Jarod Russo, Regent Law Family Law student:

If a person went back three hundred years ago and asked one of the American settlers, or any person during that time, what gender roles were, they would probably have no idea what you were talking about. I say that because back then, it was so rooted in society that men work outside the home, and women work in the home. I am in no way advocating that women should not be allowed to work, but I am advocating that, for the most part, we should encourage women to choose to work inside the home of they want to do so. There are plenty of great women in government, law, medicine, and so on. This article is not meant to disparage them in any way; it explains the rule, not the exception. The purpose of this post is to help women realize what most of them are called to do, and that is to be wives and mothers.

There is a viral trend of women on TikTok filming themselves in tears because they find the 9-5 job boring, dull, depressing, and hopeless. There is a reason for that, and that reason is that women generally find much more fulfillment from being mothers and wives. It is fundamentally rooted in nature that women have a gift for nurturing, just like it is fundamentally rooted in nature that men are supposed to be providers. The modern feminist movement vehemently advocates for women to abandon marriage and the family, to pursue a career only, and basically die alone. They claim that their husbands ‘oppress them,’ but they don’t want you to notice that their boss is often a man. The ‘oppression’ they get from a boss is far more real than that of a loving husband.

 

Depression and anxiety rates in both women and men are skyrocketing, and it’s not a mystery why. Men feel despair because they feel that everyone hates them for their ‘male privilege,' and women feel despair because they feel they can’t find a man who supports their career goals. This is why we should return to traditional gender roles for most people. Society needs to encourage men to work, not sit around all week playing video games. And, society needs to encourage women to pursue men who have aspirations for working outside the home, not the other way around. This doesn’t mean every man has to earn a big salary, but it does mean men should work, barring some extreme circumstance like illness or injury. Doing this would greatly strengthen the nuclear family, and both men and women would feel much more fulfilled by doing what God called men and women to do from the beginning.

Family Law Meets Reality TV

 

This guest post is from Kainat Chaudry, Regent Law Family Law student:

A Christian Reflection on Love, Conflict, and Public Drama 

At one point or another, a lot of us have found ourselves investing a significant amount of time in the world of reality TV shows. From dramatic rose ceremonies to shocking reunion episodes, reality TV has no shortage of emotionally charged moments — and many of them revolve around love, relationships, custody battles, and complicated breakups. Family law addresses these topics and uses the law to find an answer to complex issues. While undeniably entertaining, reality television often takes some significant liberties with the practicalities of family law. From custody battles to co-parenting dilemmas, the legal and emotional difficulties of family life are played out before our eyes. This also gives rise to the question: As Christians, how should we view the intersection between family law and entertainment?

The Courtroom is Not a Soundstage

Shows like Divorce Court and Paternity Court mix real-life legal disputes with a dash of made-for-TV theatrics. While the cases may be authentic, the drama is often dialed up for ratings.

Reality Check:
 Most family law proceedings, especially those involving children, are actually quiet, private, and emotionally complex. Judges are hardly giving out verdicts with one-liners. And courtroom outbursts? They work rarely, if ever. They can actually hurt your case.

 

“Will You Accept This Prenup?”

No one says that on The Bachelor, but perhaps they should. Shows centered on whirlwind romances almost never show the legal side of serious relationships.

Reality Check:
In real life, marriage involves navigating legal waters. It includes conversations on financial rights, debt sharing, and even prenups. More couples (especially younger ones) are utilizing prenuptial agreements to come to an agreement for some of those issues. Reality shows rarely mention this, but love and law go hand in hand.

 

Custody Battles Aren’t Decided Over Dinner

Reality shows sometimes give the impression that custody can be negotiated over a text or an explosive dinner table argument. In truth, courts focus on the best interest of the child, which requires the court to go through a thorough evaluation of living arrangements, each parent's ability to provide, and even interviews with children in some cases.

Reality Check:

Custody, thankfully, is not about who “wins” the argument. Rather, it is about what is safest and healthiest for the child’s future. Reality TV seldom shows the involvement of child psychologists, social workers, or custody evaluators.

 

Love is Blind... But Marriage Is Not

Netflix’s Love Is Blind turned dating into a social experiment, where couples get engaged without ever seeing each other. After spending only a few weeks together, the couples are standing at the altar with a decision to say “I do” or walk away. But when they do say yes? That’s a legally binding marriage.

Reality Check:

The show ignores the serious legal implications of marriage. These couples, practically strangers, walk right into a legal contract that affects property rights, spousal support, and in some cases, even immigration status. Unfortunately, if the marriage ends, they will need to go through formal divorce proceedings like anyone else, including splitting assets and dealing with spousal support.

 

The Court of Public Opinion Does not Operate Like a Legal Court

Reality TV is fueled by public perception, but the law gives attention to facts and evidence. For instance, a parent might be portrayed as unstable on TV; however, unless there is solid proof in court, that perception will not influence a judge.

Reality Check:

Judges do not watch reality shows to make decisions. They rely on testimony, legal standards, and court records. Media portrayals do not often align with legal outcomes.

 

Reality TV Can Actually Complicate Family Law Cases

When family law issues are broadcast on national TV, they can have real-world consequences. The most obvious consequence is how the statements made on air can become evidence in court, and the exposure can impact children, reputations, and legal strategies.

Reality Check:

Lawyers often advise clients to stay off social media (definitely off reality TV) while going through sensitive family law proceedings. “What you say can be used against you” is not just an aphorism.

 

Finally, how should Christians respond?

1.    Be Discerning Viewers
Not all reality TV is inherently harmful, but it does call for discernment. Are the shows promoting healing or simply monetizing pain?

2.    Model Christ-Centered Family Life
In our own relationships, let’s strive to reflect the grace, patience, and forgiveness that God shows us.

3.    Pray for Families in Crisis
It is important to remember that behind every on-screen dispute is a real family. Believers should aim to pray for families around them going through difficult seasons, including those navigating legal battles, and be the hands and feet of Jesus.

4.    Support with Compassion
If someone in your community is walking through divorce, custody disputes, or family legal matters, offer support—not gossip or judgment.

 

In the end, reality TV may show us a version of truth, but as followers of Christ, we are called to pursue something higher: peace, justice, and love in every aspect of family life—especially in the brokenness.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” — Matthew 5:9

Medical Aid in Dying Deconstructs Family Restoration

The New York State Assembly has just passed the most lenient and unchecked euthanasia bill not just in America, but throughout the world. Awaiting Senate approval and signature by the governor, the bill seriously lacks safeguards, instigating a bipartisan effort that saw 20 Democrats break ranks to vote with the Assembly’s 47 Republicans against the bill – entitled Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – while 81 remaining Democrats voted for passage.

The bill fails to require patients to be psychiatrically evaluated before opting for suicide, and does not outline a mechanism for recovery of the lethal drug from those who request it but then later decide against its use. Furthermore, while two physicians are required for the fatal prescription, they may be consulted virtually – no in person meeting is required. Most significant is that MAID sends a troubling message that life can cease to be worth living.

Those most vulnerable to this fatal influence will consist of those too poor to obtain adequate medical care, the marginalized, and research reveals that women are a particularly vulnerable segment of this group.  See Women and Assisted Suicide: Exposing the Gender Vulnerability to Acquiescent Death, 4 Cardozo Women’s L. J. 241 (1997). Your family members could be at risk without you ever realizing it.

Finally, while a few other state jurisdictions have some type of assisted suicide allowance, New York’s legislation requires no waiting period whatsoever – turning suicide into a spur of the moment decision and a medical treatment option.

While some may argue in favor of euthanasia as an individual choice, it does not accomplish family restoration. Rather, as Madeline Kearns of The Free Press (June 8, 2025) notes, there exist some very authentic concerns for the individual and for society:

The assisted suicide advocates I spoke with have many admirable qualities. Chief among them is their strong will and clear-mindedness. But they risk assuming that everyone facing a devastating diagnosis is of a similar disposition. What they might not appreciate is that in insisting on control at the end of life, they are chipping away at the agency of those who have so little to begin with and whose motivations may be compromised by depression, uncertainty, loneliness, ambivalence, grief, poverty, or despair. We owe these New Yorkers more than we currently give. And much more than a cocktail of barbiturates.

Are Christians Failing to Preserve Marriage?

 

This guest post is from Sean O’Dea, Regent Law 3L & Family Law student:

Marriage rates have continued to decline with increasing rapidity in the United States since the mid-20th century. Christians are rightly concerned about these developments, as marriage has historically served as the institution best oriented to aid in child-rearing. While Christian marriage advocacy efforts have attempted to reverse current trends, little has been accomplished. Why? Christian advocacy has failed because it has ignored the growing issues inside of marriage itself that have rightfully begun to discourage participation in the institution.

Marriage is no longer a Christian institution. The State has usurped the power of the Church, effectively replacing the Church as the arbiter of marriage. This has eroded the power of the Church to regulate divorce and has led to the widespread proliferation of no-fault divorce. While the Catholic and Orthodox Churches still maintain some control over marriage, having retained the authority to deny communion to those who obtain a divorce without ecclesiastical authorization, most Protestant denominations fail to even exercise this level of control. Christians should ask themselves, “Who has the authority to end my marriage?” If your answer is “me” or “my spouse” or “the State,” your marriage is institutionally indistinguishable from a secular, state-granted marriage. Marriage has been reduced from a binding religious covenant to a secularized contractual relationship that can be unilaterally terminated anytime by either spouse. When Christians blindly advocate for marriage, they advocate for a diseased version of the former religious institution.

Due to the role feminism has played in transfiguring Christianity, traditional spousal duties inside of marriage have been completely eroded. The battle over reproductive rights has resulted in diminishing the blessing of bearing children. In fact, the act of terminating one’s pregnancy is now considered by our culture as an act of female empowerment. The unfortunate result is a below replacement birthrate and the necessitation of mass immigration to make up for the shortfall. Too many see marriage as a form of patriarchal oppression, rather than understanding the biblical mandate that husbands have the ultimate duty to lay down their lives for their wives. The erosion of spousal sharing of duties has led away from the team concept in marriage and parenting as well. The societal stigma attached to abandoning one’s wife and children is not completely gone but is eroding and becoming more common. The rationalization is often that if women have a right to have their children killed, men should at least have the right to abandon their children. Our society’s social cohesion will continue to unravel unless Christians can return to the biblical design for marriage, with oneness in marriage enshrined in hearts and minds.  That mindset always translates to family blessings beyond measure.

If Christians can return their marriages to reflect traditional biblical conduct and lifestyle rather than reflecting worldly standards promoted by secular society we can make a difference.  Christians and Christian institutions ought to strive to be distinct from society, not conform to society. We are called to transformational living, where husbands and wives honor and love each other for a lifetime, and pass those values on to their children.  If that can be accomplished, the institution of marriage will not only not die inside the United States, but can thrive and change the world for good.

Every Child is a Wanted Child

 

This guest post is From Hannah Holmes, Regent Law 2L & Family Law student:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once stated, "Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only a wanted child who is likely to be a social asset." But is that truly the case? Are unwanted children a social liability?

 

Time and time again, pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is necessary to prevent unwanted children from ending up in a broken system. While the foster care system undoubtedly has challenges, is it accurate to assume that placing a child for adoption means they will be lost in the system? The reality is quite the opposite—newborns placed for adoption are overwhelmingly welcomed into loving homes.

In fact, demand for adoption far exceeds supply. While the numbers are not exact some studies show that approximately 2 million couples are actively waiting to specifically adopt a newborn, yet only 18,000 newborns are voluntarily placed for adoption each year in the United States.

 

Furthermore, infertility rates continue to rise. According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 9% of men and 11% of women (around 3 million women) in the U.S. face infertility. Women between 18 and 44 with fertility challenges are four times more likely to consider adoption as their path to parenthood. One study even said that about 50% of women who experience infertility will turn to adoption. This means the women wanting children will continue to rise.

 

If you are facing an unplanned pregnancy, adoption empowers you with choices. Unlike the common misconception, you have the ability to select the perfect family for your baby, ensuring they grow up in a loving and stable home. The fear that a child will be lost in foster care simply does not align with the facts.

 

The real issue is lack of information. Many expecting mothers are unaware of their options, believing that abortion is their only choice. Fortunately, numerous resources exist to guide and support women in finding the best possible future for their child. Below are some reputable organizations dedicated to helping mothers make their next choice and perhaps connect with hopeful families ready to provide love, stability, and a bright future.

Your choice matters. Your child is wanted. The perfect family is waiting.

Options for Pregnancy at https://optionsforpregnancy.com/about-us/ 

Adopt Help at https://www.adopthelp.com/pregnant-we-can-help/

Radiance Foundation at https://radiancefoundation.org/sallyslambs/. 

Embrace Grace at https://www.embracegrace.com/about-us/our-story 

Birthright at https://birthright.org/learn/ 

Project Cuddle at https://projectcuddle.org 

Adoption for my Baby at https://adoption-for-my-baby.com/adoption-by-state/.

Do All (Red, White, &) Blue States Think Alike on Marriage? You Might Be Surprised...

 

This guest post is from Cameron Wall, Regent Law Family Law student:

One would think the state of California and the state of Illinois, both of which share a lengthy history of voting “blue,” would have a near synonymous historical recognition of marriage- after all, it was only within five months’ time that both states legally recognized same-sex marriages as legal (Illinois in November of 2013 and California in June of 2013). Despite similar rulings on same-sex marriages, these heavyweight states, often toted as “champions of the left,” quite fascinatingly, hold incredibly differing perspectives on the recognition of marriage and property rights associated with marital contracts.

In California, for example, the case Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 665 (1976), established state-wide precedent that recognized marital property rights of couples that did not, in fact, possess a legally recognized marriage at the time. This was a landmark case for the people of California, as it recognized two individuals, who were not married according to the letter of California law, as enjoying the same property rights of those who were lawfully married. The Supreme Court of California reasoned this was a just determination because, in reality, these individuals held an implied marriage by contract- they acted like they were married, relied on each other for support, orally agreed to combine their efforts and share in the equity of their combined property, and lived together for nearly seven years. The court therefore held that partners in non-marital relationships may, in fact, bring claims of property division based on rights assigned by implied contracts, ultimately siding with the plaintiff’s quantum meruit argument and definition of marital rights under common law.

In a surprise twist of events, as California began to liberally extend their definition and recognition of marital rights, the Illinois courts stood stoic, doubling down on the more conservative understanding and recognition of marriage and marital property rights associated with marriage. For example, in the landmark case Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (1979), property claims by unmarried couples who were living together in a “marriage-like relationship” were held as invalid and unenforceable. The court determined these pseudo-marriages (implied marriages by contract) went against Illinois public policy, citing principles deeply rooted within the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which emphasized the preservation of marriage and explicitly rejected common-law marriages (implied marriages by co-habitation).

All in all, although it may seem like traditionally blue states may always vote the same and honor other blue states laws/policies, history shows us that this is not always the case, even with respect to hot-button topics like marriage rights and fairness in the distribution of property resulting from that particular state’s definition of marriage. Although Illinois and California often vote similarly, enact similar laws, and similarly lean to the left, Hewitt still remains controlling law in Illinois, and Marvin still remains good law in California today.