The applicant sought a temporary order for custody of the parties' child, born December 25, 2013, following separation on September 2, 2014.
The applicant was charged with assaulting the respondent and released on an undertaking prohibiting direct or indirect communication with the respondent.
The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in the care of the respondent mother, with the applicant granted supervised access of three hours per week.
The court found the respondent was the primary caregiver during cohabitation, works part-time and is more available, and that the child benefits from remaining in the familiar home.
The applicant's request for week-about care was denied due to lack of evidence regarding the child's needs and the applicant's care plan.