The father brought a motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012, which granted custody of the child to the aunt on a default basis.
The father claimed he was not properly served with the application and that the aunt committed fraud.
The court found that the father was properly served with the court documents, signed acknowledgement of service cards with full knowledge of their contents, and was well aware of the court case.
The court also considered the father's delay in bringing the motion, his failure to promptly pursue the motion while taking substantive steps in the case (the "fresh step" principle), and the prejudice to the aunt and child.
The motion was dismissed.
