of analysis of evidence in a custody case i would not be to simply look at the factors and the size which of these factors fall in favor of one party or the other and then make a ruling accordingly e of the party factors favorites i don't believe that that was used in a proper analysis for a trial court to make in determining a custody issue but certainly the quality of the of the evidence a two three and it deals with the interact one of them of the child with the parents and significant others found this case the facts and almost all of the facts here are not  which is rather unusual and cussed case but it's understood certainly here that the mother in this case had issues with her family there might be some dispute as far as the closeness of her relationship  in terms of the mother's relationship the trouble with the with the child and in this case it's very important the evidence that we have bearing on her relationship and interaction with the child we know that there was solid evidence here of frequent and repeated failings on mothers are directly pertaining to her of civility and willingness to care for this child i want to highlight a witness here during her testimony which was lengthy there are not just general statements about well i think she's a good mother or you know i think she should have custody though we have very specific testimony about numerous and not believe either party was a good parent and it was forced to pick the better of the bed choice was the court correct well obviously we don't believe the court was correct in warning as to them other than in terms of the state  bro norman rockwell i'm not saying that i guess we can we can discuss what the term good parent means but my response that would be in the court made the statement well we have to look  as to the accuracy of the court's statement that father was banned here was he squeaky clean oh no he was not and that that can be seen from the evidence but what the court relied upon as far as we can tell in the evidence was basically two factors or two to issue one label mr crozier as a multiple sex offender and to the head he made a court that is made  but we're dealing with young parents on both sides i would submit that given this was well before the the time when the child was born he was very young that it would be less likely given all the evidence we have here on the tire record then what his comments to the court is testimony would not be true for other words it be much it would be easier to conclude if this was an or if he was older and had been in member this parties and higher life and all the sudden you know we're talking about one to three year period of time well three years ago i disassociated myself with this party well if that's a different statement if you're fifty years old and i can understand a certain amount of skepticism in this case though there's no question that then we have a at that time a very young person and i think that under the circumstances it's less likely that he does still have those leanings i think the word leans was the word that the trial for you as far as the other reason for the court statement that i think these both both these parties are not good parents right or bad parents relationship with a sixteen year old and not only does she have a sexual relationship with him which is a it in she does a bedtime commit a crime by doing so i don't know that but she becomes pregnant with this sixteen that she may and then made as a person or point to have consequences insofar as the child is concerned and her ability to properly parent so it is my point here that that that that that night factor involving sex offender is my point that the courtship of favor mr crowe sure at this point no my point my point their argument here is that this should have been here we do not have negative testimony from the mother for instance we don't have any testimony from other that when when the when the father has visitation with this child that she comes home dirty that you can't adjustment to the home which involves a significant question of stability and the physical health of the parties involved putting smoking using illegal substances  those factors those three factors in our view based on this record should have strongly come down in favor of mr kosher here so it's back to what i was going into at the outset we have  factors three of which are in play if you want to call that the ninth at best or worst neutral so we look at the these three factors and when we consider all of the evidence and i talked about the testimony from this b she says that the what she told what the testimony that she render during the cross of my cross examination was accurate there's no question about that so i was doing what she could here to try to get this witness to say i think it can be discounted but yes and i also made the comment that what we had during her testimony was very specific testimony concerning vents and situations and what this mother was doing  is that's very specific testimony and then she just makes a general statement in response to i think what leading question from other do you think that you still think that she should have custody i think she says no so we have a very very just general statement versus very specific testimony that she specifically when given the opportunity to recant going to die she declines to do so so we believe that that testimony is far more truthful and credible than a statement at trial which is as well now i don't know i don't want to think that she is after all by this is so then the other the other so we're talking about the this what  festival only of this witness who we think is significant which by the way this or truck or doesn't mention this find anywhere so we think that is certainly significant testimony we have the evidence  her instability where she even admits that she's in an unstable situation i think in my previous searches nine times since the trial of the like cut it up again i came up with nine just in the short period of time between the child that's fine stated that they both have done pretty well i think there's a direct quote in terms of their their their attitudes towards the other party in terms of course during  i think what we found was the unique perspective we were faced with we were not involved in the trial court proceedings are involved in this case came out with this appeal so as part of that we're reviewing a whole record as we get ready to determine how we're going to argue the case and why i found interesting in doing that is the importance of the deference that must be given to the trial court the credibility arguments that are made at trial court level the facial reactions the body backward i think i went by judge travers to the decision that he made he specifically said in his decision that he had to read between the lines it's a direct quote from his decision and i think that's important i think at the end of the day credibility in the decision as it was judge travers decision against the manifest weight of the evidence was this decision unreasonable was it arbitrary was there no evidence to support when he decided well it's it seems regrettable if the  two bad choices i think we have two young individuals who have a lot of growing up to do and unfortunately were put in the place of being parents at a young age they both need to grow up they both need to figure out what's important put the child first and i hope that that happens i think that the evidence though does support judge traverse finding in looking at the factors he did a nice job in his decision of going through each of them i don't think that he specifically found factor one in favor of mom factor two in favor of cad i think the approach that he took and i think in this particular case was a reasonable one and go through his comments about each of those factors place in his mind the weight on those factors that's appropriate and then an ounce his decision which is what you did the factors are not inclusive there it says all relevant factors including the tenor numerated in the statute and i think that he did a nice job of considering all of those we don't have a scorecard here mom gets are important ones are his interaction in sexual relationships with younger individuals one being his stepsister for which he was convicted of a battery as a result of that incident and the other being a member of the national socialist organization he also admi testimony that i believe police records would indicate he had a gang affiliation i'm assuming that all stems from his and his interaction and relationship with the national socialist organization in the braves i think the big issues for the stability of my client and beginning in august of two thousand and ten she started living with her pregnant grandparents she continues there today so i think the stability issue has fallen by the wayside and judge travers had the opportunity to see that in two of the hearings he had because two of those were after the time in which she moved in with programs that in addition there was a question about her legal drug use judge travers consistently tested both individuals throughout the proceedings they passed off a drug test and i think that's i think that's a good sign in this particular case  passed those drug tests one of them being a hair follicle test which i think you're going to try to fake a drug test on you're going to have difficulty on that particular test doing it and i think that i think that's important because there are many questions about her drug use but there is very when you look at her answers the questions given to her along her answers are yes or no i don't think there's a lot you can glean out of yes no answers and at the end of the day she did side with my client and say yes i believe cu should be with her whether or not she's biased against one side or the other i think is i think it probably depends on the day her situations are precarious when she's friends with my client that she's sleeping with  i don't know where someone like that follows and i think judge traverses probably dismissed a great deal of what he heard from her and making his decision and so in viewing all the evidence before the court the statutory factors that have to be considered and the credibility which i think is the huge piece of this the credibility of the parties we believe the church traverse made the right decision that his decision was not against manifest weight of the evidence and we would ask the justices today to specific comments twice as the fact that mother was not represented by an attorney at this at this and the trial goes out of his way to point out this twice and it's hard not to reach the conclusion when you