or not the trout court's ruling was against the manifest way of the evidence we do not have an issue here and fitness that was handled the biological father was found on the bed they were there was a motion to reconsider there were several and then motions to reconsider it was heard by another judge and they confirmed the finding of unfitness so we're here on today is solely that best interest is important to go back to the beginning of this case this case began long before two thousand and seventeen when it was actually filed this case began back in two thousand and fifteen when the mother and father separated leaving a two year old little boy in the mix that two year old little boy went for over two years but the biological father failing to do anything to provide for him he did not see him he did not do anything that a parent would you if it were to step up and actually be a parent nothing has changed as we stand here today except we are now four years down the line instead of a two year old that we had when the party separated for a three year old that we had when the case st came to be we now have a six year old so for four years that six year old has not seen the biological father that biological father has not provided for this child the child those who didn't know who the biological father it was it was only when the only father was child has ever known stepped up and wanted to make it official and for them to be an official family the biological father decided he might want to do something now counsel is going to argue to you know that the reason why the biological father did not see the child is because the mother put it to him from doing so that is absolutely false there were a handful of times in the two year time period of two million one hundred and fifty two thousand and seventeen dollars the biological father asked the mother if he could see the minor every single time the mother responded yes in a public place not one time did the biological father follow up on that question with him we nee what time what day he never responded to any of those so she did not tonight him any visitation she always said get in a public place it was on him but he failed to follow through with that physical items for the child in the form of welfare the child affection support clothes food nothing of that nature he did provide health insurance but he's probably not going to tell you but as you will have seen in the record is that the battle of the father did not even tell the mother that he had the child covered on health insurance what good is that going to do a child if the mother who cares for him doesn't know that this even exists in fact all that it was fate of hardship for the child that her chip came on the floor of the child being very ill he was ill mother took him to the doctor went to the pharmacy to get  and it was only then that she was told her insurance card was not valid because it was covered under some other insurance now this was years since they had spoken since he had seen the child she had no idea what they were talking about the research from the pharmacy they were able to find out that it was under the name of curtis for who is the biological father the mother reached out to her asking what is this about insurance i need to get  for the child he never responded she texted him he never responded i myself reached out to the biological father he never responded i reached out to the paternal grandmother i was cussed out and i was hung up on none of those things are showing a biological father who cares right for his son or even one person for his extended family who cares right for that child a friend of the biological mother biological father this was his response perhaps to be edited for the purposes we're here for today and i'm only reading this to show the best interest of this trial does not play with this father is responsible and said that the child was sick and needed this insurance card was this think well i don't know who this is and i don't give a blank who you are don't ever stick yourself in my personal life and why i do not respond to this message and stay out of my blanking life take care of yourself and mind your own thinking business not one time the biological father reach out to anyone myself included and he had all my contact information including the personal cell phone number now one time did he reach out and follow up as to how that child was doing not one time and best interest the court is not to consider what is best for my clients what is best for the biological father it's what's best for the child that's where the focus shifts and we are at best again we have a sexual of a boy when we go through the best interest factors every single one of them the point that is in the best interest of this minor child for the biological rights of his father shelter health and clothing for minor lives with his mother and with the father that he has known for over three fourths of his life in the time he was to until the age of six that's who he has known his father he just at the age where children are learning their wonders learning their name how to spell their name how to write their name the child one is name as saying buddy he is now finishing up his kindergarten year school he identifies himself and same body that's where he goes fine that is his identity and he identifies again with the family the only family that he has ever know being his mother who shares that last name of the father but he knows anthony but he shares that last name in five siblings four of those siblings share that last name one does not he had been in phase with all of them as his brothers and sisters and they have been raised together for the past four years the next factor the child's back down in time except for the st two years of the child's life all of the child's back down in price or with friends with all of them they're all at his celebrations and there's miles they support him like a family would the biological father hasn't been there for any of that again this child does not even know who biological father is and going back to the biological father not only did he not follow the mother when she said that she could see them eye on a public place he never filed anything in co see parents this time with the minor in fact he was in court prior to the infamous hearing he would start months before that even started and he said he was going to get into the basement and file for something that day he never guess i should file something for visitation so feeling years later he's going to file something for visitation and been found unfit that's not something that an active parent w the child sense of attachments including security sense of familiarity again all he knows is the family in the body and his mother sarah body he knows them as mom and dad he has known them as mom and dad from the time he was two so today he is six years old he knows the house he knows his brothers and sisters he knows a scream here and that is his identity the ages up to si grandparents that's what he knows with the budding family same school district who has been there for every st day of school mr peabody who has been there for every birthday from the time the child was three and till six that's for birthdays mr has not been there for the st day of school for a doctor's appointment well birthday party his biological father the biological father couldn't even tell you where he went to school he didn't know  think he was and by estimation of his age but he couldn't tell you wearing when he couldn't tell your teacher was he could not tell you his activities what he liked to do you like what kind of t v show it like what his favorite color stepped up and has proved for this trial and every single way he has provided financially for the child the biological father has provided nothing not one to me since at least two thousand and fifteen he hasn't provided any kind of emotional support physical support nothing he does not know the child the child does not know him so what we are left with that has the spot there john what has this child done how is this child living and is that in the child's best interest we cannot speculate that the child i'm sorry for the biological father is now after four years maybe going to do something to parent fit in essence is he put the challenge shelf you like the mother take care of him he let mr body take care of him financially in every other way facts that are presented and that is that every single best interest factor shows in favor of anybody being his father the attorney who represented my client the best interests here and i'm not so sure i recognise the evidence that was suggested by counsel because what i heard was a completely different case i heard a case in which a mother refused to allow contact with the file at the moment he went back to his wife and basically said you don't care about the son while not letting him be near the sun it's like someone stealing your car and saying you're not a good father because you don't have transportation because here's what she did i mean this is with the record of the hearing we're actually hear on appeal on the mother after separating my quite went back to his wife two days later she sent him a text that said you know you really eft up you really made it really you're never going to see me or sing every again you blew us off for the nasty c word again you're f and stupid now this is why lawyers and family cases were of facebook and digital messaging because before we would never have to be a real conversation now we get it memorialize and the court heard that and that was just the beginning because what he would try to do was see his child and then s t c should refer to is actually his wife and she proceeded to name the name every opportunity he tried to contact took him for a ride on funny how another me and can play a better dad will and then she goes on time and time again he asked to see as chelsea goes here your son and she post a picture on facebook this is three months so it goes on and on i don't want nothing from him or you're my children that's wrong for social media seuss's exists this is actually evidence it's in there she says right he was watching the channel along with the mother she said she had no problem with his ability to do this so nothing about his ability to grab women of his offense was that he didn't want her any more he wanted to go back to his wife and he did it so she would post on i don't think you should be around the wife but i said are you saying that you wanted to keep them from doing what you've actually done which she did this case is remarkable for two reasons one in danger he's got other children again the offense this crew did all this problem is a huge rejected that women and two days later he gets with his very very predictable media not predictable  happy to do that we'd be happy to do it under any sort of sit anything but no and the reason it's been rejected because this case is pending it will be futile to either decide one way or the other and then go back to trial court we've got a setting the idea she wanted to sue this guy that him knowing and somehow he found out so he was able to undo the felts because she said we just don't know where he is going to will he's an exact same place he was and she knew it and she didn't sign it is funny because we have better access sometimes if we have money or we don't have money because you can possibly good legal services if you have a lot of money maybe there are but if your net middle  but it's real and you have to decide what you're going to do something on your own and not knowing something was filed is a problem so continuous pattern of attempts the guardian ad litem said hey i think it's appropriate not to trim his rights and property keep this family relationship in existence and it's better for the child and the judge give reasons on the record why she agreed and she heard the case that were here on not the case before which was heard by a judge flat out who couldn't hear it because  go on my new wife and punish this guy said shame on him for having insurance on this child shame on him for not being able to get communication to finally the people at a block or cause her comments were so spare and that's one forgivable and i think it's shown what she did in the trial she may have passed by on the best interest thing i did have to do with that but when i did get it and we had a chance to see it in the judge shot i think the judge a group that's the best interest of this child to know that they has other people who run him and have been there and for recruiting booth videos just in hopes that mom would give in some way to let him see attorney and then we had the issue of the insurance i reached out for him to contact me he was not represented obviously and he was represented i was going to the attorney and i just want to clarify that there was nothing to hide y did publish at the end of that as well it does go to one of the best interest factors but the mind set or did does not change what the facts are counsel said that this mean would do anything to see his child under any circumstances but he couldn't for two years before when the petition for adoption was filed there offered every single time which there were nine time answered every time i guess you can see him in a public place he never followed through for on that so i don't know why this court is supposed to believe that he's going to follow through with it were no failures down the road when he didn't do it right here when they were not file something in court this also goes he came in here and with a case that we heard here in the th district and you know it was a rule twenty three case it was not cited this precedent by any means however it is a