The parties engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their 6-year-old son following their separation.
The mother sought sole custody, while the father initially sought joint custody but amended his claim to sole custody at trial.
A section 30 assessment recommended a parallel parenting regime, but the court rejected this due to the entrenched conflict and inability of the parents to communicate effectively.
The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother, finding she was better positioned to provide a stable environment and multidimensional guidance, and was more likely to foster the child's relationship with the father.
The father was granted a specified access schedule.
The court also ruled on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the child regarding alleged physical discipline in the father's home, finding them inadmissible for the truth of their contents due to reliability concerns.
The father was ordered to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines.
