The father brought a motion seeking primary care of the parties’ child after the child had temporarily resided with him during the mother’s attempt to relocate for employment.
The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return to her care pending determination of the father’s motion to change an earlier custody order.
The court found that the prior final order granting the mother sole custody represented the legal status quo and that the temporary residence arrangement with the father was intended to be temporary under the parties’ agreement.
Applying the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded the child should return to the mother’s care until the motion to change is determined on the merits.
