The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.
The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.
The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.
The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.
