The testimony referenced by Judge Adms in this is almost 100% uncontested lie. it was uncontested because Judge Adams would not let dad testify to anything before 2009 but all of these lies/claims by mom, supposidly happened in 1999 and 2000. And you have to notice her reference and consideration of OBVIOUS hearsay evidence in "what the child said" to mom. Not to mention that most of this was completely made up by mom. It was like....the more shit she made up, the mor Judge Adams pulled out of her. It was an attempted slaughter.
What the court said:
F. The Moral Fitness of the Parties Involved
The evidence established that the parties had a history of sexual deviance throughout their marriage, The Mother testified she was sexually abused and complied in fear of Domestic Violence, and that there was infidelity on the part of Father during their marriage.
Testimony substantiated that the Father made disrespectful and inappropriate remarks about the FAME Supervisor, Priscilla Wells, and placed them on the internet, while the case was pending before this Court, reports that the Father was recording the Court proceedings, on and off the record, and using foul, demeaning, and offensive comments made via email and/or text messaging to others and to Mr. Gates, Mother testified that the child has communicated to her that Father has made disparaging and offensive remarks about her and other type of females to Quincy (or in front of him) that appear to have had a significant. negative impact on the child (caused him to cry).
Mother admitted to driving the child to school while having open traffic-related suspensions on her driving record . The Court had entered an Order requiring the Mother to clear all open suspensions and to obtain a valid Michigan operator's license by a specific date. Mother complied with the court order, providing evidence of her compliance at the custody hearing. Neither party admitted to having a criminal record.
This factor favors the Mother.
The Whole Truth As Transcripts Prove:
D. The trial court 's finding that factor (f) favored the Defendant is
against the great weight of the evidence and the record supports the conclusion
that the evidence clearly preponderates in the direction that this factor should
favor Plaintiff Factor (f) involves the moral fitness of the parties96
Questionable conduct IS relevant to factor (f) "only if it is a type of conduct
that necessarily has a significant influence on how one will function as a
parent." Fletcher, supra at 887; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).
The trial court made specific findings under this factor of that are unsupported by the record, and further, are irrelevant to the determination of factor (f) pursuant to Fletcher. Specifically, the trial court's findings that (I) "the parties had a history of sexual deviance throughout their marriage, and that Defendant was sexually abused and complied in fear of Domestic Violence;" (2) that "testimony substantiated that Plaintiff made disrespectful and inappropriate remarks about the FAME Supervisor, Priscilla Wells and placed them on the internet;" (3) that " reports that the Plaintiff was recording the court proceedings, on and off the record, and using foul, demeaning and offensive comments made via email and/or text messaging to others and to Mr. Gates, and;" (4) that "the Defendant's testimony that the child had communicated to her that Plaintiff had made disparaging and offensive remarks about her and other type of females to the child (or in front of him) that appear to have had a significant, negative impact on the child," are all against the great weight of the evidence.
As to the trial court's finding that "the parties had a history of sexual deviance and that the Defendant was sexually abused," there is no testimony or other evidence that can be found anywhere on the record to support this finding. While the Defendant did testify that while the parties were married (in 2000), both of them participated and engaged in extra-relations with the Defendant girlfriends; Defendant's response to the inquiry of whether she consented to these acts was, "They were my friends, I consented to it. Moreover, there is no testimony or other evidence that would support the trial court's finding that the Defendant was sexually abused, as no witness, including the Defendant herself, never testified that Plaintiff sexually abused her. Finally, there was no evidence that the minor child was aware of, or even born, during the time the Plaintiff and Defendant mutually consented to engage in sexual relations with others. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion, assuming arguendo that the trial court's findings were actually supported by the evidence, that this behavior by Plaintiff demonstrated a poor moral example for the child, is a clear legal error on a major issue that requires reversal. Fletcher, supra at 896; 526 NW2d 889.
Additionally, the trial court's finding that, "the Plaintiff made disrespectful and inappropriate remarks about Priscilla Wells and posted them on the Internet," is against the great weight of the evidence and wholly unsupported on the record. In fact, the record does nothing more than establish that Priscilla Wells was made aware of a website authored by Plaintiff regarding his experiences with the 3rd Circuit Court during the current custody motion. Ms. Wells, nor any other witness, testified as to the specific content or nature of any statements contained on the website, in any manner. In fact, Ms. Wells repeatedly testified that "she could not remember what the content on the website said, and she could care less," and further, that she "did not remember what the content said, nor could she quote anything, positive or negative." In fact, Ms. Wells unequivocally indicated a minimum of five (5) times that she "did not remember" any of the alleged statements. Moreover, Ms. Wells testified that she believed that everyone has a right to say whatever they think and feel. 98 This testimony of Ms. Wells was immediately followed by the trial court's comment of, "Freedom of speech does not extend to you have a pending action where you' re seeking relief from the Court. It doesn't extend to that. It's inappropriate counsel now move on.,,99 It' s apparent to the Plaintiff, given the trial court's express commentary, that the trial court did not believe that the First Amendment of the Constitution, which provides individuals with the freedom to speak freely without government interference, extended to persons who have pending actions seeking relief from the court, however; the trial court's assertion is not only constitutionally incorrect, but further does not equate to the finding that the statements made, if any at all, by Plaintiff were "disrespectful or inappropriate," nor does the existence of any statements made, have any bearing on Plaintiffs moral fitness as a parent. Moreover, the trial court's specific finding that the statements made were disrespectful and inappropriate," despite Ms. Wells' repeated and unequivocal testimony that she could not recall the exact statements nor could she recall the nature of the statements, evidences that the trial court judge was blatantly untruthful when it took judicial notice that "I didn't even see it; that I didn't see the email; that I don't even pull my emails and I didn't even see it, so I don't know what it said. Because there was no other evidence or testimony that the trial court could have relied on to make an express finding as to not only the existence of the statements, but as to the exact nature of the statements made, and further, that the statements made were negative, disrespectful and inappropriate other than the trial court judges own receipt of the ex parte email and the trial court judges further conduct in personally viewing the website from the link contained in Ms. Wells email, not only supports Plaintiffs assertion that this finding was against the great weight of the evidence, but further supports Plaintiffs contention that the trial court judge is biased against Plaintiff, and that bias is the actual basis for the trial court's findings on the best interest factors and the trial court's ultimate denial of Plaintiffs motion. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion is against the great weight of the evidence. However, assuming arguendo that the trial court's findings were actually supported by the evidence, that this behavior by Plaintiff demonstrated a poor moral example for the child, is a clear legal error on a major issue that requires reversal. Fletcher, supra at 896; 526 NW2d 889.
The trial court's finding that the Plaintiff had made disparaging and offensive remarks about her and other type of females to the child (or in front of him) that appear to have had a significant, negative impact on the child," is against the great weight of the evidence and is based on inadmissible hearsay to which Plaintiff repeatedly objected. Plaintiff does not dispute that the record contains, despite Plaintiffs repeated objections, the inherently incredible testimony of the Defendant that she believes Plaintiffs attitude toward women, specifically African American women, "is black bitches and we are all ghetto and you can take them out of the ghetto but you cant' take the ghetto out of them and white women are better simply because of their hair and eyelashes and fingernails and things like that;" and the further testimony of the Defendant that the minor child told her that, "the child told her that he has a crush on a girl at school but that he has not told the Plaintiff because the girl looked like me (the Defendant), that she is a little black girl, little corn rows and things in her hair. .. why haven't you told you dad," and "I didn't tell him because she's a little black girl; that's what I heard. As stated above, the testimony is not only inadmissible hearsay, which constitutes an abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing its admission, but is also inherently incredible for the reason that Plaintiff is African American, his mother and siblings are African American, his wife is a Hispanic/African American and his children, including the minor child at issue in this case is African American. The Defendant's incredible testimony was nothing more than an obvious attempt by Defendant, to inflame the trial court judge, who is also an African American female, against the Plaintiff. Unfortunately, it appears that Defendant succeeded.
Furthermore, the trial court ignored and failed to consider any of the facts established and supported by the evidence on the record that the Michigan Supreme Court in Fletcher provided as examples of the type of conduct to be considered under factor (t). Fletcher, supra at 887 (see footnote 6), which includes conduct that represents the type of questionable conduct relevant to one's moral fitness as a parent, which includes, verbal abuse, drinking problems, driving record, physical or sexual abuse of children, and other illegal or offensive behaviors. The record is replete with evidence that the Defendant conceived a child with her current husband before her marriage to her third (3rd) husband was finalized, which the child was exposed to, that the Defendant was arrested for drunk driving in 2005, with a blood alcohol content of .22, and was the second incident of an arrest for drunk driving; that the Defendant admitted that her driver license was suspended for nearly seven (7) years and she continued to drive the minor child; that Defendant allowed her current husband, who also has no valid driver license, drive with the minor child in the vehicle; 106 as well as the established conduct of the Defendant practicing blood-drawing techniques on the minor child and then lying to various authorities during the investigation.
For these reasons, the trial court not only committed clear legal error with regard to its analysis of factor (t), which constitutes reversal; the trial court's finding that this factor favors the Defendant is against the great weight of the evidence and the record clearly preponderates in the finding that factor (t) favors the Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that this Court set aside the trial court's finding as to this factor.