Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Meghan King has agreed to a new custody deal that, US media reports say, limits her parenting time to “a few weeks every summer” while her three children live full-time with ex-husband Jim Edmonds in Tennessee.
The agreement was reached shortly before a scheduled Dec. 9 court hearing was called off, and it follows a Child Protective Services investigation that previously led to supervised visitation.
Meghan King is facing one of the sharpest legal turns a parent can experience in family court: a custody agreement that US media reports say will allow her to see her children for only a “few weeks every summer.”
The Real Housewives of Orange County alum and her ex-husband, former MLB player Jim Edmonds, reached the deal shortly before they were due in court on December 9, 2025, and the hearing was called off after the agreement was finalised, according to Edmonds’ representative.
The stakes are immediate and intensely personal, because this isn’t a headline about celebrity drama, it’s a legal reset of where three children live, how a parent maintains contact, and what safeguards the system imposes when child-welfare concerns are raised.
The custody shift follows a Child Protective Services investigation that, according to US reporting, resulted in King temporarily losing custody and being limited to supervised visits.
US media reports say King and Edmonds share three children: daughter Aspen and twins Hart and Hayes. Public reporting has differed on Aspen’s age, while the twins are consistently described as seven years old.
The children are now living full-time with Edmonds and his wife, Kortnie, in Tennessee, while King’s parenting time is limited to several weeks during the summer, an arrangement widely described as allowing her to see the children for “a few weeks every summer.”
The agreement was reached shortly before a custody hearing scheduled for December 9, 2025. Edmonds’ representative Steve Honig has publicly stated that the hearing was called off after both sides reached an agreement “in the best interests of the children.”
The custody change follows a Child Protective Services investigation tied to allegations that King gave one child prescription ADHD medication without a prescription.
US media reports say the incident led to a child-welfare review and resulted in King temporarily losing custody and being limited to supervised visitation.
This is a family law custody matter shaped by child-welfare intervention. In most US jurisdictions, custody decisions are guided by the “best interests of the child” standard—an umbrella test that can allow rapid court action when safety or wellbeing concerns are raised.
When CPS (or a similar agency) investigates, courts can enter temporary emergency orders while facts are assessed.
Those orders can include sole physical custody to one parent, supervised visitation for the other, restrictions on school or medical decision-making, and requirements like parenting classes, evaluations, or compliance check-ins, depending on what the court deems necessary.
Legally relevant evidence in cases like this typically falls into categories such as medical documentation, school communications, agency findings, court-appointed guardian reports (where used), and the parents’ sworn statements.
Procedurally, the pathway often includes: temporary orders → investigation/reports → negotiated parenting plan or hearing → court approval and enforcement mechanisms.
Outcomes can include reinstated shared custody, continued primary custody for one parent, modified visitation schedules, or ongoing supervision requirements, always framed around the child’s welfare, not public opinion.
Nothing in the public reporting indicates criminal charges. CPS investigations and custody disputes are typically civil processes focused on parenting arrangements and child safety, not criminal punishment.
It generally describes a limited parenting-time schedule where one parent has the children primarily during school-year weeks while the other parent receives a defined block during summer break. The exact number of weeks and any conditions (like supervision) may be set out in the parenting plan, but not all terms are public.
It’s common for custody disputes to resolve through agreement shortly before a scheduled court date. When both sides reach a signed parenting plan, the hearing can be cancelled and the agreement can be submitted for court approval or entered as an order.
Custody orders can typically be modified if there is a material change in circumstances and the requested change serves the child’s best interests. Courts generally require a clear factual basis and proper filings rather than informal requests.
This story highlights a core reality of family law: custody can change quickly when a child-welfare concern triggers agency involvement.
Many parents assume custody is stable once a divorce is final; in practice, custody is modifiable and can be reshaped by new allegations, investigations, or court findings.
It also shows why “temporary” orders matter.
A parent may receive supervised visits during an investigation, and later negotiations can produce a long-term schedule that reflects risk controls, logistics (like interstate living arrangements), and stability for school routines.
Finally, it underscores how custody outcomes often turn on process—documentation, agency steps, court calendars, and enforceable parenting plans, rather than on social-media narratives.
If the court or an agency is involved, parents should expect decisions to be structured around measurable safeguards and consistency for the children.
Best-case procedural scenario: The parenting plan is implemented without further court conflict, and any required conditions (if any exist) are completed, allowing either parent to petition later for an updated schedule through standard modification procedures.
Worst-case procedural scenario: Additional disputes lead to enforcement motions, renewed requests for supervised contact, or further temporary orders if new child-welfare reports are made—each requiring court review and documented filings.
Most common procedural pathway in similar cases: The agreement becomes the operative framework, followed by practical adjustments handled through counsel or mediation; future changes—if sought—typically proceed through a formal modification motion supported by new information and focused on the child’s best interests.
Was this decided by a judge at trial?
US media reports indicate the parents reached an agreement outside of court shortly before a scheduled hearing, which was then called off. That kind of deal can still be formalised as a court order.
Are the kids now living in Tennessee full-time?
Yes. Under the current custody agreement, the children are living full-time with their father, Jim Edmonds, in Tennessee.
Is the CPS investigation still active?
Public reporting confirms CPS involvement triggered temporary custody changes, but it does not clearly state whether the investigation remains open.
Meghan King’s custody agreement, which limits her parenting time to a few weeks each summer, illustrates how child-welfare involvement can rapidly and fundamentally alter custody arrangements.
The current status is a negotiated resolution that replaced a scheduled court hearing and places the children full-time with their father, Jim Edmonds, in Tennessee.
Any future changes would generally require a formal custody-modification request grounded in the children’s best interests. More broadly, the case underscores how CPS involvement can transform informal co-parenting into a structured, court-enforceable framework focused on stability and safeguards.
👉 How Meghan King’s Custody Case Quietly Shifted to Settlement 👈
