What compelling reasons exist which lead the court to deviate from the status quo?

There are occasions on which “compelling reasons” exist which lead the court to deviate from the status quo. In G.E.R v. H.J.R. 2012 PESC 24, I addressed the issue at para. 21 and stated: 21 Preservation of the status quo in custodial arrangements has been deemed to be of paramount importance and something that should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. The implicit, and sometimes explicit, presumption is that a regular schedule provides stability. That is very often the case. However, in some cases, including week‑about shared parenting arrangements, it may do nothing more than ensure consistent instability. Refusing to alter the status quo in the name of stability may provide certainty regarding custodial arrangements, and may save the courts from hearing variation applications or appeals of custodial motions, but it is not a guarantee that the best interests of the child have been considered. Slavish adherence to the status quo presumes the best interests of the child are static as of the moment in time when the first motion is presented to court. That is often not the case. Consideration of the best interests of the child are paramount to any notion of preservation of the status quo.