On a temporary motion in a long-running family case, the moving party sought immediate implementation of a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule based on selected pages from an updated s. 112 OCL report, and also sought related child support changes.
The court held that varying a temporary parenting order requires a material change and exceptional circumstances demonstrated by clear, compelling evidence, with strong caution against repeated interim re-litigation and against adopting untested assessment recommendations before trial.
The motion record was found deficient because only recommendation pages were filed and the evidentiary context was not provided, and no urgency was established to justify disruption of the existing status quo.
The court dismissed the parenting variation request, noted procedural missteps regarding variation of a final support order, and directed the matter back to combined settlement and trial scheduling.
Costs were resolved on consent with payment timelines for current and prior costs awards.
