Virtual visitation: what the court may order and what does not count

It is a short law that gives a name and rules to something practice already did: video calls between a parent and their minor child when they are not in the same place. What matters is not that it authorizes the video call — nobody doubted that — but that it fixes its place within the custody and support regime. Article 5 frames everything: electronic communication shall be used exclusively to supplement direct personal contact, meaning face-to-face, and in no way to substitute it.

A parent and their minor child. The law sets no income or marital status requirements; what it sets are the factors the court shall consider before ordering electronic communication: the child’s best interest, the availability of the necessary equipment, the parent’s prior history of domestic violence and controlled substance use, and any other factor the court deems pertinent. That third factor is explicit in the text and worth knowing before requesting the order.

• That the court determines the electronic communication is in the child’s best interest.Verified against the official source
• That the necessary equipment be available, a factor the court must expressly consider.Verified against the official source

• Nothing the law requires you to submit by name. What the court will weigh are Article 3’s four factors, so it is worth bringing what supports the child’s best interest and the equipment’s availability.
• If you will ask for expenses to be allocated: proof of both parents’ financial situation, which is what the law directs be taken into account.

1. 1

   Step 1: Ask for it within the case you already have

   The law creates no separate procedure: it says a court may order electronic communications between a parent and their minor child. The request is made before the court handling custody or parent-child relations. And the court shall set guidelines for the electronic communication if needed, so it is worth proposing concrete guidelines — days, times, duration, who places the call — rather than leaving it open.

2. 2

   Step 2: Know what the court will weigh

   Article 3 lists four factors: whether it is in the child’s best interest; the availability of the necessary equipment; the parent’s prior history of domestic violence and controlled substance use; and any other factor the court deems pertinent. The third is written into the law, not pure discretion: if there is a history of that kind, it is a factor the court must consider.

3. 3

   Step 3: Ask that expenses be allocated if needed

   If the court finds one or both parents will have to incur additional costs to comply with the order, it may allocate the necessary expenses for the electronic communication, taking into account each parent’s financial situation. It is not automatic: you must raise it and give the court a basis to assess each one’s finances.

4. 4

   Step 4: That cost does not go into the support order

   This is the rule that saves the most arguments. If the court orders the non-custodial person to cover the cost of the equipment needed to establish virtual or online contact with the child or children, according to their financial resources, the cost of that equipment may not be considered in the process of setting or modifying child support, under the Guidelines to Determine and Modify Child Support in Puerto Rico adopted pursuant to Act 5-1986. In other words: paying for the tablet or the service does not lower your support obligation.

5. 5

   Step 5: Virtual contact does not count as parenting time either

   The law says it expressly at the end of Article 5: the non-custodial person’s virtual contact with the child or children shall not be considered for purposes of claiming a child support adjustment on account of "Parenting Time Percentage", as contemplated in the same Guidelines. It is the flip side of the previous rule, and worth knowing before building an argument on it.

6. 6

   Step 6: It does not justify a relocation

   The same article closes it: the court shall not consider the availability of electronic communication as an exclusive factor when considering the relocation of the parent who has custody of the child. That is, "they can see each other on video anyway" is not, by itself, the reason that decides a relocation.

Before the court handling your custody or parent-child relations case. The law creates no form and no agency: it gives the court the power to order the electronic communication, set guidelines for it and allocate its expenses. If there is also a child support dispute, that is governed by Act 5-1986 and its Guidelines, with the express caveat that neither the equipment cost nor the virtual contact enters that calculation.

• Trying to replace in-person visits with video calls: the law says they supplement and in no way substitute.
• Counting virtual contact as parenting time to seek a support adjustment: the law expressly excludes it.
• Deducting from support the equipment cost the court ordered you to pay: that cost is not considered when setting or modifying it.
• Using the availability of video calls as the argument that decides a relocation.
• Requesting the order without proposing concrete guidelines on days, times and duration.
• Forgetting that a history of domestic violence and controlled substance use is a factor the law directs be considered.
• Assuming the law covers adult children.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov

• Judicial Branch of Puerto Rico

  Rama Judicial

  poderjudicial.pr