What court issued the custody and visitation orders in Erika Kirk's divorce?

1. Background: what the sources actually cover

One item, from The Economic Times, focuses on viral claims that Erika and Charlie Kirk had filed for divorce before his assassination and reports those claims were debunked, noting neither Candace Owens nor Erika Kirk validated the divorce assertions ^[1]. The other, from People, reports a Utah judge issued a pretrial protective order barring an accused shooter from contacting Erika Kirk in the criminal case connected to Charlie Kirk’s death; that article centers on criminal-procedure developments and public statements about continuing Turning Point USA’s mission ^[2].

2. Direct answer to the question — which court issued custody/visitation orders?

No source provided names any court that issued custody or visitation orders involving Erika Kirk; therefore, based on the supplied reporting there is no documented family-court custody or visitation order to attribute to a specific court ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What the reporting does show instead — protective order in Utah criminal proceedings

The People report explicitly states a Utah judge issued a pretrial protective order in the criminal case against the alleged shooter, which is distinct from family-court custody or visitation orders and functions within criminal-procedure rules to bar contact between the accused and the victim’s widow ^[2]. This protective order should not be conflated with divorce-era custody or visitation rulings; the Economic Times piece likewise addresses social-media divorce claims and not court rulings on custody ^[1].

4. Limits of the record — absence is not proof of nonexistence

Because neither source documents custody or visitation orders, it is not possible from these materials to confirm whether such orders ever existed or, if they did, which court would have issued them; the available reporting simply does not cover family-court filings or judgments related to divorce custody ^{[1] [2]}. This analysis therefore must be explicit about that gap rather than assert facts beyond the supplied reporting.

5. Why confusion can arise — social media, protective orders, and narrative drift

The Economic Times article highlights how viral social-media posts can blur timelines and conflate different legal mechanisms—claims about a divorce circulated despite being debunked ^[1]—and the People article documents a distinct judicial action in a criminal docket ^[2]. Readers and commentators can easily conflate a criminal protective order (a temporary, case-specific bar on contact issued by a judge in a criminal matter) with family-court custody or visitation orders, which are separate legal processes handled by family or civil courts; the sources show the press covered the protective order but not any family-court custody ruling ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in coverage

The Economic Times frames the divorce story as viral misinformation and emphasizes debunking, which points to an agenda of correcting social-media falsehoods ^[1]. The People story focuses on victim protections and the criminal case, which carries an agenda of reporting on public-safety and judicial responses ^[2]. Both angles explain why custody/visitation court details—if they exist—were not foregrounded: one source sought to rebut a rumor, the other to cover criminal-procedure developments rather than family-law records ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Conclusion

Given the limits of the two provided reports, the direct answer is that no court issuing custody or visitation orders in Erika Kirk’s divorce is identified in the cited coverage; the reporting instead addresses a debunked divorce rumor and a Utah pretrial protective order in a criminal case, and therefore cannot be used to name a family court that issued custody or visitation orders ^{[1] [2]}.