A trial judge’s attempt to find a novel way of undercutting a father’s case for custody modification on the occasion of a mother’s move out of the original school district led to a constitutional ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court because it caused this judge to tangle with the local school board. In an opinion involving constitutional law principles rather than custody law issues, the Supreme Court vacated an order that the school authorities enroll the child in a district where neither one of the parties any longer lived. One of the couple’s two sons, in the mother’s custody, was getting special education. The father had moved out of the district first and the mother later. Upon her move he sued to modify custody, saying that he would be glad to move back to the original school district if he could have primary custody of the two boys. This threat to the mother’s continued custody was met by a circuit court order for the school board to enroll the child in the old district this year, despite no residency, even though the school board’s rule is that the child must attend in the district where the parent with primary custody lives. The school board managed to get immediate appeal of this injunctive order under §8.01-626 as an appeal from an injunction. The school board argued not only that the judges can’t issue injunctions usurping the school board’s constitutional authority over pupil assignments, but also that the issue matters a lot because 9% of the county’s students have parents with different home addresses, and making the school board a participant in any of the thousands of divorce and child custody cases litigated there would be impractical and burdensome in the extreme, and it should have a right to use the simple rule of primary custodial residence. The Court vacated the injunction in a two-page order. Fairfax County School Board v. Zurita, 25 VLW 453 (9/28/10).