Does a regulation requiring a person to live within the city limits have an unintended effect on the relationship between family members?

A similar issue arose in Hameetman v. City of Chicago (7th Cir.1985) 776 F.2d 636, in which a municipal employee challenged a regulation requiring him to reside within the city limits. The employee claimed that it was necessary for his hyperkinetic child to remain in the Indiana school system, and that compelling him to live in Chicago would thus sever the familial bonds. The court held that a regulation was not invalid merely because it had the incidental, or unintended effect of inducing family members to live apart. (Id. at p. 643.)