On an early family law motion brought weeks after separation, the moving party sought sole custody, primary residence, and tightly restricted supervised access based on escalating abuse allegations.
The court found the evidentiary presentation atypical and concerning, rejected or discounted several professional letters for irrelevance or non-compliance with the expert evidence rule, and emphasized the obligation of each parent to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent.
The court concluded the moving party’s post-separation conduct was not aligned with the younger child’s best interests, particularly given the disruption of the father-child and sibling relationships.
A temporary parenting regime was imposed requiring the child to reside first with the father for a defined period, then transition into an alternating schedule, with communication protocols and continuing mutual restraining terms.
