[10] This case can be distinguished from the decision in Garside v. Greenfield[3] in that there was no custody or access agreement, nor any court order between those parties. Here, there is such an agreement and the court should be reluctant to interfere with the status quo on an interim basis unless there is some compelling reason to do so. I might add that, as the criterion is child-oriented, the compelling reason(s) should be related to the child.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.