The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions seeking primary residency and to determine the school enrollment for their 12-year-old son after both parents relocated to different cities.
Given the conflicting evidence, lack of cross-examinations, and absence of input from the child, the court declined to make a substantive residency order.
Instead, the court made an interim interim without prejudice order requiring the child to attend school remotely through a school in the father's jurisdiction, while ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and a Voice of the Child Report.
