basically a travesty of what's happened the situation is and i don't want to make light of any of my points but the custody is what we're primarily here but they're all involved in one issue one form or been is this molestation of a younger brother and i believe that certainly if that was come on or even close to the time of any of this or was tied together that it may have serious bearing on not allowed that to happen well after it happened when they got up there the doctor they doctored a record by clive took everything i don't know what more she could have taken it's all in the  we're supposed to be deferential to this question or recall such as who would be the better parent they said my experience as a trial judge there is no single really by the trial court i think we're entitled the difference in this  that we from a cool record cannot and you believe what you are telling the appeal that ruling and asking us to reverse this to demonstrate not to drill it was wrong stevens said somewhere along the line he changed gears but he didn't have any evidence to do what i can't see and if you review even if you put down the evidence most favorable to his view of the facts and based upon his review of the individuals he felt that it wasn't there was no danger there with it that's what he was sent to do that's why i did pay what white eric is first of all if it happened is she a danger to the show and he will date opinion was she is no danger to the children and he took all of the say into account how what he did  showing of anything of that regard and i asked just what reverse i think  need counseling and she didn't believe the joint custody would work and she goes on and says in the event hurt receives custody he's requesting she receives standard visitation if in the event she refuses counseling services if he's worried sole custody he feels or should be no where she was spending most of her time with her horse you know she was coming home at night sleeping we had abundance of evidence and first hearing from three our mississippi body and that she was taking hydrocodone we have a doctor's record by stipulation from dr wallace where the local clinic appoints the medical group to cut her off of treatment because he said over the last year year and a half she was showing up for sinus infection just infections a sore hand because she fell asking specifically for more detail judge bailey and found that that he looked at the number of pills she had access to and he found that she was at least taking three a day will be a problem is mr haphazard address this and didn't address it in the first part of th ree judge bailey when he looked at what the evidence was and when he looked to see the report of dr day he said i can't believe dr dave's record because she doesn't even acknowledge that she was abusing hydrocodone over this time and he came to the conclusion that she took in six hundred thirty one days he listed the number of pills based on the evidence that we had any and he said she was at least eighty three pills a day during this time period if you spread it out the second thing  that that came to the attention of the judge and most important thing is mr hecht brings in the issue of the sexual abuse the judge have baylee in the order of protection when we were looking about abuse issues and those of use issues were what incident decision and judge bailey gave a very detailed decision it wasn't in the package given doctor they were judge bailey said the father clearly did not abuse these the wife in this case it was a domestic argument the the situation was clear that he's never abuse these children he's no harm to these children and the judge dismissed the order protection in fact the judge assessed three thousand of her own fees told her she had to pay three thousand of her own fees because he in his conclusion in the end he felt she bought a frivolous were protection that we spent days in court on our thing about bringing police officers in bringing the witnesses to that occurrence so it's a situation clearly  i don't have a drug problem i didn't i didn't use any drugs in fact she gave specific information to the guardian ad litum where she went through and said i just took i just took the lortab over a month a few months over the summer and that was clearly contrary to the evidence that the judge had before and with the pharmacists and the number of pills she was taken in and dr waltzes report that they had to cut her off from medicines of at the ambulatory care if once the medical group because she was showing up every month and wife get in an argument the wife claiming that the husband has are and adore him it's hurting your hand hogan saying he's trying to close the door wife's coming in the bathroom and he's on the phone calling his in laws trying to get her not to come in the bathroom to avoid confrontation in a fight that's what the judge heard with dr de when he got down to the heart of off the sexual abuse the brother he took her word for and she said oh i never sexually abuse justice as we're not talking in this case about one experimental thing between a brother or sister a sister who is eight years older than a little brother we're talking about a period of four to five years that this went on and it was sexual intercourse and it was in detail and yes th deposition was given to dr dave that dr de was in the court room he never personally interviewed mr her brother jeff davis he never personally was in court and watched him testify as mr hecht according to judge bail parents about what was going on this time period he said because she was my big sister and i trusted and judge bailey clearly could look at this when he sees dr hayes report and dr de recent train trip totally ignores it doesn't pursue an evaluation with respect they should simply finds she has no problems she's not an abuse well maybe that's what his tests showed but he wasn't in the court room to make that call and judge bailey saw all the evidence he heard mr davis testify about went on between he and his sister and he's the one that made the call and in the case it's not a situation where we had evidence and when we told that to the judge for very first time we have no evidence throughout this case that there's been any molest ation  by michele with the youngest child and we had no evidence of that whatsoever what we had is evidence that it went on for a long period of time and it was never dealt with and we're judged fairly changed his mind as judge seidlin just said can a judge change of mind share where he changed his mind is when you have her originally telling her brother when he confronts her about in september hallway when charles the brother came and confronts or she says i don't remember it happening then i'm sorry then the two brothers confront her the whole brothers confront her again and she then denies it and in this was a repetitive thing that judge bailey found that that her own father testified to she constantly switches stories she admitted to her nexus to that that maybe down the room the custody pursuits he never said that that it would be a situation where it couldn't be in or dev's and i always wondered i argued to the judge both during the trial and the closing argument you have subsection rate and there's really very little case law on it but it says in there that the courts can consider whether one of the the parents is a sexual offender it doesn't say they have to be convicted it doesn't say they have to be felons although judge bailey did make a finding in part of his decision that he felt michelle kind of were had committed felonies specifically stealing hydrocodone from her own grandfather which she admitted to her friend margaret hansel her father mother in september when they confronted her and then she later took her her boyfriend in and told her father that she really wanted to retract all that in january of zero nine she wanted to retract all that recant on it because she was just under a lot of pressure of the time and her own father's testimony was michelle khan over in her in her proposals in her way she dealt with this thing he said she started the separation of the five weeks of the order protection by not getting the father got no visitation and the father testified the day he was served order protection the children literally were crying when he left that house when the police officer said you got to get out of the house they were crime by five years gone by his tests and five weeks gone by his testimony was the next time i saw all the children the two girls they were on me big time the mother had already convinced them that the father was lying about her abusive high to kowtow he had abused her they already saw their father is an abuser they always saw their father was a controller and judge bailey picked up on that very well in that the big picture in this case is with judge bailey says one of the things that a good parent will do is they created this foster and create a good relationship with the other parent that wasn't done in this case and just really clearly defined it saw it and he said not only was it happened with him she cut her whole family she she cut off her she cut off her brothers she cut off her parents she cut off everybody she basically started a new life with her with her then boyfriend and she bought one witness in court it was a high school friend that pretty much testified that she'd seen her with the children and that she was doing a good job with children so the surroundings that she didn't and i wanted to one of the things that struck me  this this was a piece of evidence that i thought was very relevant to the case one of the issues that came out it was the at one point the girl the daughter's face book and this is  somebody told eric and it ultimately came to court was that michelle sends the daughter samantha on facebook a message that says expect the bass be prepared for the worst f what others think and do your own thing and so when that was brought to to the court's attention and when mr powell was told she said well that was really a mistake that didn't come from my computer but somehow samantha got on my computer and took something somebody others for problems sees the world is a threat in place and unjustly blames she's unjustly blamed for other people's problems and she's getting rolled to a life and just dr de also said with respect air con over that he was social that he was adjusted that he had a personality that was conducive to to raising these children the only defect he saw in his problem is if he had it in a little bit of an inferior complex about he didn't want people dr they didn't have the right facts dr de did not have her true story about the abuse of the drugs because she flat out denied it and what she did is her parents talked her into going into the hospital and to get six in treat schedule this for like i think july fourth or january fourteenth and fifteenth he said we're going to conclude the truck and he offered to counsel at that time he said we're not going to continue this case beyond those tapes if you want to bring dr day and you can bring dr dan you can take a deposition or whatever i was never offered by mr had to take his deposition mr heck did not bring him to court on those days and the fact is judge bailey accepted the report of the meara to the full days of trial in this  going to several the other issues that were raised there's no law that says that a husband and wife can't talk about testimony and that's what judge aly said and he said mr head you know can you prove prejudice can you prove are can you prove that that whatsoever the poster coming over seems diligent in his business although in spite he had obviously had the divorce on his minds seedings took over a year and half that he didn't see any effect on his business he was turning down his so that the two hundred thousand dollars was somewhat less and educate yes no i think the records were in there they were exhibit shown and we provided all the way up to try out we provided mr head access all the way up right up to the days of trial and we and we provided or that she didn't get a fair share of the house equity in that she didn't feel she got an f m eight that's i think one of the important issues in this case is not only did he have to pay a lot of bills mr pownall was saturated with the bills that came out of bailey saw it it was expanding huge sums of money on credit cards there was an active credit card that she somehow activated that had been dormant with us for several years and she ran up to fifteen thousand dollars judge bailey found that a lot of the expenses were not guardian ad litum it's in the green line support the reason i stopped going to dr froman right after he testified in court is because i didn't have the money but yet on the other hand we showed some of the exorbitant credit cards the amount of money she spent on credit cards and so this is a case of riders with all due respect mr heck there was overwhelming evidence that judge bailey looked through saw looked at all the evidence looked at total circumstances of this case and made a correct decision that's not against  maybe as far as one thousand years before any of this was brought to the court's attention the bottom line is is that prior to the filing as i put in my grief prior to the filing of this she was a lovely mother they were living the  so far as having having money in my life with there the money will continue to be there they've lived a lifestyle they were married fifteen years they lived in a country club lifestyle they had lunches they had their they lived on country club drive they they they live that lifestyle so to say that an example of that the corpus should everything is a core consumer everything it had to ignore the majority of the evidence and even