This endorsement addresses costs following a parenting motion where both the Applicant Father and Respondent Mother sought costs on different bases, claiming substantial success.
The motion concerned primary residence, parenting schedule, a therapeutic order, and the presence of a paternal grandparents' dog.
The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their offers to settle.
A significant factor in the costs decision was the parties' intransigence, particularly regarding the dog issue, and their use of surreptitious recordings.
The court emphasized that such recordings foster deceit and hinder productive discussions, generally not serving the child's best interests.
Given the mixed success, mutual intransigence, and problematic litigation conduct, the court ordered no costs to either party.
