The applicant father sought an urgent motion to change the children's residential schedule to establish equal time-sharing or primary residence with him, citing concerns about the respondent mother's work as a healthcare professional during the COVID-19 pandemic and the children residing with maternal grandparents.
The court, acting as a Triage Judge, found that the motion to change the residential schedule was not urgent, as the father failed to provide substantive evidence that the children were unsafe or that the existing arrangements needed urgent modification.
Furthermore, the court determined that the father's lack of access since March 20, 2020, was not urgent because he had refused offered access that did not meet his demand for equal time-sharing.
The court denied the urgent motion, encouraging parties to resume the regular residential schedule.
