Discuss how moving from "visitation" to "parenting time" in custody law shows a shift towards child-centric family jurisprudence.

In October 2026, the Karnataka High Court told all Family Courts to use "parenting time" instead of "visitation". It said a child should not come to know a parent through a word meant for a guest [1]. The change in wording reflects a larger move away from parents' entitlement and towards the child's right to both parents.

What the shift signifies

• "Visitation" made custody a contest: one parent "wins" the child and the other becomes a visitor.
• "Parenting time" treats the non-custodial parent as a co-parent with continuing duties. This keeps the child at the centre, not the dispute [1].

How it reflects child-centric jurisprudence

• Welfare principle: The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes the child's welfare paramount. The Law Commission's 257th Report (2015) sought to extend this principle to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, along with joint custody and mediation [3].
• Child as rights-holder: In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), the Supreme Court held that a child needs the love and company of both parents. Contact may be denied only in extreme cases [4].
• International norms: Article 9(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects a separated child's right to regular contact with both parents, unless this is against the child's best interests [2].
• Language reform: The change builds on the Supreme Court's Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (2023), which accepted that legal words carry social meaning [5].
• Case-by-case justice: The High Court rejected any "straitjacket formula" and shaped arrangements around each child's circumstances [1].

Limitations

• A new label does not change outcomes by itself. The welfare test still depends on how judges reason.
• The direction binds only the courts under one High Court. The legal changes proposed in the 257th Report have still not been enacted [3].
• Where there is abuse or domestic violence, contact must give way to the child's safety, as the Convention's best-interests exception requires [2].

The move from "visitation" to "parenting time" therefore shifts the question from who owns the child to what the child needs. It can become the national norm through amendments to the Guardians and Wards Act, court-supervised parenting plans, and training at judicial academies. This would advance Article 39(f), which promises that children grow up in conditions of freedom and dignity.