The applicant brought a motion for contempt and amendments to the parenting schedule, alleging the respondent breached a final order and communicated abusively.
The respondent alleged the applicant breached the order and sought a week-about schedule.
The court found the breaches stemmed from a misunderstanding of the schedule's implementation and declined to find contempt, though it noted the respondent's communications were at times derogatory.
The parties consented to a 'swear jar' order.
The court clarified the existing schedule rather than amending it.
As success was mixed and judicial intervention was necessary, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.
