The applicant sought interim custody or primary residence of the parties’ child, defined access for the respondent, child support, and contribution to daycare expenses.
The respondent sought expanded access and a change of the child’s school.
The court held that the child’s primary residence should remain with the applicant given the status quo and the child’s long-standing residence and daycare arrangements.
The court rejected the respondent’s claim that his parenting time reached the 40 percent threshold under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the respondent’s income for relevant periods.
The request to change the child’s school was dismissed on an interim basis pending further evidence.
