In many instances when facing a dispute during a divorce or custody case, it is important to be mindful of the existing circumstances: where the child is living; who is in possession of the house; whether both spouses are working outside the home. It is important because, all other things being equal, the court is very likely to maintain the status quo, if possible, when deciding an issue.
This is especially important in the case of temporary orders (i.e., court orders that are in effect while the case is pending). If the court must decide the temporary parenting schedule, the court will likely need a specific reason to CHANGE what the current pattern is. Unless there is good reason, the court is likely to stick to the "status quo." If one party has refrained from working outside the home for several years, the court is unlikely to expect that party to immediately produce substantial income. Instead, the court will (at least temporarily) maintain the status quo, and refrain from expecting separate earnings from that party.
The status quo issue is an important consideration when someone is deciding whether or not to move out of the marital residence. If someone moves out of the house, they can be creating a new "status quo" that they may need to be prepared to stick with. Someone who moves out, leaving children at the marital home with the other parent, allows for a new "status quo" that the children are living with one parent in the home. The party who moved out may have a difficult time later obtaining sole custody, or even joint custody, based upon the status quo established with the move-out.
The same can be said of later obtaining possession of the house. If one party moves out, then the family court is unlikely to impose upon the other party the disruption of moving out over his or her objection.