Maddest Dad In Michigan

Wayne County Stench

Below is the courts' assessment and opinion as to factor B and its application in our child custody hearing. If you read the left and the right, you can see rather clearly that there were some very pertinent pieces of information that the court deliberately chose not to consider.

From The Judges' Opinion

 B. The Capacity and Disposition of the Parties Involved to Give the Child, Love, Education and Guidance and to Continue the Education and Raising of the Child in his or her Religion or Creed.

Both parties testified to providing Quincy with love, affection and guidance. It was substantiated that both parents are supportive of Quincy's efforts and achievements, being actively involved. the Mother assists Quincy consistently with homework and tutoring, while the Father has exposed the child to computer systems.

There was testimony that each parent participates in religious service. Although the Mother testified that she and Quincy attend regularly, while the Father attends only occasionally. There was no testimony that either parent engages in the use of corporal punishment as a form of discipline for Quincy.

This factor favors both parties equally.

What REALLY happened in court:

Factor (b) involves the capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.

The trial court made certain specific findings under this factor, which are wholly unsupported by any evidence on the entire record. Specifically, the trial court's finding that " it was substantiated that both parents are supportive of the child's efforts and achievements, being actively involved, the Defendant assists the child consistently with homework and tutoring, while the Plaintiff has exposed the child to computer systems is against the great weight of the evidence. In fact, the evidence established that it is Plaintiff, not Defendant, who is actively involved with the child's efforts and academic achievements. Further, the evidence established that in the 20I0-20II school year, the child had thirty-three (33) absences and four (4) tardies in the first half of the school year, and an additional fifteen (15) absences and three (3) tardies in the second half of the 2010-2011 school year, for a combined total of forty-eight (48) absences and seven (7) tardies in one (I) academic year. Further, as of March 1,2012, the minor child had already accrued thirteen (13) absences and one (I) tardy for the 2011-2012 school year. Testimony further established that each of the child's absences occurred on days when the child was in Defendant's care; despite defendant's bold testimony that the child "never misses school with me. Additionally, the child's homeroom teacher, Ms. D****, testified that the child's attendance did affect performance in her class.

Further evidence established that the child had received an "F" on his current report card and that the child had never had received an "F" before. Additionally, both Defendant and her husband testified that they assisted the child with his homework, Defendant even went so far as to testify that she signs the child's homework every night. When she was confronted with a stack of the originals of the child's homework for the 2011-2012 school year, which did not contain a single signature of hers, she attempted to change her testimony.

Finally, Ms. Wells testified that although the parties did not indicate significant concerns to her in August 2010, regarding the child 's attendance and grades, that in her opinion, 49 absences and an "F" is a concern and would be weighted against the parent that is responsible to get the child to and from school. Perhaps most significantly was the trial court judge's own narrative that the number of absences that the child had for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years was "clearly excessive yet the trial court failed to acknowledge the excessive number of absences of the child or the child 's dramatic decline in grades when analyzing factor (b), which expressly requires the court to examine each party's capacity and disposition to give the child education and guidance and continue the education and raising of the child.

Further, the trial court failed to acknowledge the Defendant's established history and pattern of misconduct as evidence by her repeated denials of Plaintiff's parenting time, her repeated failures to follow the medical directives for the child, her failure to include and list Plaintiff on the child 's school records and emergency cards, the numerous orders entered by the court directing Defendant to comply with the custody and parenting time orders. Additionally, Defendant herself testified that she lied to the CPS worker when she was asked about the blood drawing incident, because the CPS worker called her a "snub,". This evidence certainly supports the conclusion that Defendant's misconduct and decisions to lie not only compromises her ability to properly parent and/or provide the child with guidance, but also has an adverse effect on the child, and his well being directly. The trial court is required to consider any evidence in its analysis of the child custody factors, including either party's misconduct, if that misconduct has an identifiable adverse effect on a particular person's ability or disposition to raise a child.


  • 20 years, same job.
  • High School Grad
  • Good credit
  • 2nd marriage
  • No Domestic Violence
  • Safe neighborhood
  • Canton School
  • No drugs or alcohol
  • Consistent home necessities


  • On 4th Marriage
  • Works less than 10%
  • Drug history
  • History - Alcohol abuse
  • .22 BAC - DIU Arrest
  • Domestic Violence
  • GED at age 25
  • Welfare
  • Detroit Public Schools
  • 6 Mile & Livernois
  • Multiple Power Disconnects
  • Stealing Power
  • Bad driving record