The applicant and respondent separated in 2016.
The court heard interim motions, resolving most by consent.
The primary contested issue was the respondent's motion to find the applicant in civil contempt for denying him access to their children, Connor and Austin, contrary to an October 2017 order.
The court found that the applicant deliberately and willfully breached the order by unilaterally suspending access, citing concerns about the children's well-being and Connor's stated refusal to visit.
However, applying the high standard for contempt, the court declined to find her in contempt, giving her the benefit of the doubt due to some objective basis for her concerns and the impending trial.
The court emphasized that a parent cannot unilaterally disregard court orders or abdicate parental responsibility by deferring to a child's wishes regarding access.