thousand and nine to provide the partitive joint custody of the minor child it also provided basically a fifty fifty split of time with the child and provided for no child support after that order was interim or one two thousand and ten after the temporary hearing that changed the order with regard to support and was based upon certain factors that the court initially stated were were brought forth in that hearing less than thirty days later the court introduce was sponsored order march twenty third two thousand and ten there is no there is no situation at any point in time with the court said this specter on this specter we're looking at this and this spectacle looking at this and of course the emily's group doesn't point to any such record there's no there's no identification of the court in this particular case looked at other factors one of which was being the fact that what the court believed was the timing of my client's desire to obtain custody in fact in the petition for dissolution of marriage that pointed out in my brain he asked for custody of his  in june of zero nine they had joint custody of the child and yet the court said in its in its final order it's the timing that would in which mr jackson asked for the custody of the child that he finds very probative with regard to this issue the  court really only addressed one of those factors that the court i think failed to address several factors which applied of course all factors going to apply in all cases but certainly the question mental health was that issue in this particular case it's pointed out through the record that ms jackson attempted suicide on two different occasions and while those were somewhat distant in the past it was also brought up there was never a trigger for those that was brought up in conjunction in conjunction with her own testimony where she admitted striking her daughter not mr jackson's trial by a prior relationship on different occasions and in fact striking that this child as well those factors together the mental health of the parties in the physical abuse was never addressed at any point in time by this court there is no doubt and there's never been any allegation that my client had either a mental health issue or the issue of physical violence whether drugs towards the child or directed towards somebody else so those factors unbelievably important but probably the most important factor was the ability of the parties to cooperate the ability to post a story prior to cooperate with america's to be a parent substantial testimony was taken in this particular case about ms jackson denying my client time with a child at christmas at thanksgiving even though he had it isn't always one step or she denied visitation and most times she made unilateral decisions regarding major decisions for the child like with a child's doctor was changing the child's doctor where the child was going to be sent to preschool mr jackson had a problem with the daycare provider in her own home and the court pointed out that it was interesting that the mr jackson didn't have that problem until he was ordered to pick child support when in reality the testimony shows it was about nine months later that he got information that there was a problem in the home of the daycare provider specifically with daycare providers daughter and there was criminal activity going on or criminal activity at least  facts in a roundabout way the court found that during the pendency the action the respondent ms jackson had moved from place to place and it lived with different men during those types mr jackson of course stayed in the middle throughout that time period and had no actually addresses is the fact which will strongly favors and awarded custody to mr jackson is based upon those factors your honor and the and the and the fact that the court did not address the other factors in any way shape or form that we believe that that decision would regard because they must be reversed and remanded and we would ask the court be instructed to award custody or at least primary custody to mr jackson the second issue that the that the court addressed was the issue of child support and i think the child support in the contempt issues are kind of where the court kind of focused its attention throughout this proceeding and to the to the detriment of the custody question itself an analysis of that again requires going back to the original temporary  that draft the draft tax return said that the company had eighty four thousand dollars in income and ordered mr jackson to pay seven hundred fifty dollars a month and support this again while providing for the child almost half the time in the marital residence the court two thousand and eight and two thousand and ten now that would tell everybody that the two thousand and eight tax return that he had relied on previously he's now saying well that was just a draft it wasn't valid i can't have that i don't have enough information on which to make a determination with support but in its final order the court says that mr jackson's reliance on the courts march twenty third order was a bit of a red herring he should still pay child support according to the march first order anyway and i'm going to get to that issue when i get to the contempt issue later on however it's important to note that the court said that same march twenty third order the party should consider retaining an expert for this cause we did we brought in the account himself he was qualified as an expert witness he testified for almost a day and when the court entered its final order it said something to the effect of let me quote it exactly i think because the road with that which i could he said but the evidence of final hearing was essentially identical to them previously presented this comes after an entire day of testimony from mr johnston as to the workings of this company in two thousand and eight two thousand and nine and the first four months of two thousand and the income for two thousand and nine was only the gross income of only forty four thousand dollars and that mr jackson's income for the first four months of two thousand and ten was forty seven hundred dollars gross from that judgment  in his order saying that the testimony was centrally identical reiterate the seven hundred fifty dollars of child support which would be approximately sixty percent of mr jackson's net income as defined by step and there's no basis testimony clearly the longest testifier in this whole trial was the account who testified on and on and on about the different factors on cross examination him direct examination nothing was rebuttal from what i've just indicated to the court so therefore the issue of child support she must also be reversed because it is not based upon the evidence or the testimony and it's clearly not based on the evidence of the test but what it does is it allows the court to get into the thirty ish that issue of contempt which i eleven he issued it because mr jackson hadn't paid support and said that there was no just reason for him to conclude that his march twenty third order that said there is no god there is no way to determine support was judges but the court to decide to look beyond that that problem that it created and just hold mr mr jackson in contempt if you look at the original order you look at the march twenty third or you can only find th mr jackson was balloting his concerns as to what was the proper amount of child support the courts said i can't determine child support but then the court later on said but you should appoint someone if it doesn't then and the court heard later testimony from an account which clearly negated the obligation to pay that kind of child support and the court said it was basically the same as we heard previously when we had a contest and so that contempt or your honor we believe should be reversed and held for naught next the court determine the issue of attorneys fees and again in a manner that appears to read like it's trying to punish mr jackson for proceeding on issues that he's failed to get a right to put to go forward on the court entered an order compelling mr jackson to pay but he creates his own he creates its own rules and he says basically the problem resides in mr jackson eight having to be used on fourth of the proceedings the only a force for a proceeding was was included in the final hearing so there was no extra paid and it was no money to do any of that the court clearly said the parties had step beyond their means originally but the court still found that mr jackson should pay seventy five hundred dollars of his jackson's attorney court the way the mysteries and characterizes this hearing is that is of course were at issue with this is actually the story of bread jackson michelle jackson and gary jackson and if the court were to take everything that bret jackson has suggested bret jackson is suggesting that over a two day trial as mr grayson it pointed out plus other hearings that lasted over a two year period judgement or got everything wrong court record that those factors were considered and in this particular instance the poor did consider all those factors including the guardian ad litum his recommendation that michelle jackson have sole custody and the guardian of and  primarily on the assertion that of all the factors factors and six so to number eight which was which party will foster of course paraphrasing foster in relationship with with the other parent and which one of those parties is going to succeed in doing that the guardian ad litem found that mr jackson certainly would not the record supported that got in a lot and did find however that mrs jackson michele would do that so the court did in fact consider all of those factors the court also considered a lot of other factors which are not brought up in the appellate argument naturally or the parents case today him brad refused to pay michelle any child's even though michelle had no means of support michelle took it one hundred dollars with her bread made and made an issue of this at the trial that he took a few hundred dollars over the course of the two year period from the time that michele and brad were separated grant paid michelle seven hundred fifty dollars you characterize six hundred of that has a quote unquote distribution from this defunct corporation that they now fired to  the breakup of their marriage these parties were actually living fairly well however the court recognized this factors being very important this company that they had which was a window to getting business for automobiles specifically stated that those two while they were married and after michelle left that checking account which he says if it was a personal account after michelle left bra dollars eight g m c yukon he put a five thousand dollars deposit on that he paid for his cell is this cell phone bills he paid for trips to show me his in hooters and other restaurants he took trips so that nobody he paid his own homes utilities out of that one thing that he didn't pay and the court recognized all these back this was he refused to pay the socket mortgage on that marital home why the second mortgage has michelle's name on it by herself he refused to pay michelle any child support for the two years that they were separated however he continued to make regular monthly payments to the mother of his other child living in st louis county that there was no trial for her in fact an accommodation it was an agreed order of joint custody this is this predates mr gray's and i was in that case at that time after that was done we filed petitions for temporary relief in order to establish child support filed petitions to get into the business that michelle was also locked out of in addition to the marital home finally when we got in front of judge mitt endure for the issue of child support judgment and order issued this order establishing amount of child support and then the second order that he should he didn't set it aside we interpret it as this the judge heard the testimony at that temporary support hearing and made a determination that if we're going to figure out what the final in still still in effect that's that's how we interpret it but mayes now said well i believe what this explicitly said the judge what it did say was that there is going to be more evidence necessary in order to figure this out later that the books records the party book just a shambles all he had to go on was the income that both of them when they were married were using to pay every important debt out of their relationship and then mr jackson's assertion that somehow after he pays mortgage after he pays his utility bill after keep pace with the three vehicles that these two had and by the way he didn't pay the vehicle on the shelf after she was ordered to receive it and he was ordered to p he let that went go but he continued to pay other bills he paid the horizon bill and every other utility bill after all that's over with heaps says that he makes i believe the figure is somewhere in the four hundred dollars range as his paycheck every two weeks it's disingenuous to say on the one hand that i can pay my mortgage i can pay all of these other debts and then somehow my income for tax purposes is only apps but what branch jackson also failed to do was not only pay the child support but he was ordered explicitly to pay for this vehicle that michelle had been driving he failed to give them that vehicle had to be taken back by the lender that was the same vehicle that michelle used to transport their child around the court can take into consideration things of whether or not a person is paying child support whether or not a person is trying to support or help the lifestyle of the child and clearly by letting the vehicle that the mother is driving get taken back by the lender that doesn't help anybody michelle had to end up getting a a loan from her former husband for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars to pay for a use hyundai  this was quite frankly and i would i agree the court was probably upset with this because it's unconscionable in most people's minds he refused to let michelle have any access to the business so she had quite frankly if i were to say his way had to live other places she couldn't get in the marital home he had locked up she had to find someplace else to live mr drazen quite tried to suggest that because she didn't have any place to live that somehow suggested instability histories his client also decided that issues that she had that he was aware of prior to the marriage such as an attempted suicide was somehow now relevant to raise their child it's a typical nasty comfy case where one party says let's see what kind of nasty stuff i can dredge up with regard to my wife that is trying to take our son away oh yes she tried to commit suicide before we were married things of that nature judge just should not fight this case and quite frankly i believe the judgement dorf to define all of this unconscionable judgement or didn't see it one point and i believe that is reflected in the in the in the record that he wasn't really too happy with either one of them but based upon we call them are exhausted and sure without question yeah obviously i don't think the same position of bio implied that way but that was his opinion but in spite of that about both of them as a as a group i think you heard everything i think quite frankly he was just upset by the whole thing now the issue of indirect civil contempt that's thousand five hundred dollars out of the company account and it would be not stated whether or not it was child support or attorney's fees or property settlement judge becker made that order and he also ordered that  pay for michelle's vehicle and as i previously stated read and he would do that he did file a motion to set aside quote unquote post trial order hughleys what he called it and never never litigated that issue most notably with regard to the attorney's fees the court record shows that the court was really just kind of fed up with our bread jaxa was handling this case this was something that really should have lasted two years but it did it filed i believe five motions for continuance and in one instance right before the date of the trial filed his amended answers to in iraq a tourist disclosing a number of witnesses that we never heard before and one of which was michelle jackson's former boyfriend there was another there was another continuance it was another way to delay this whole thing with regard to it and let me let me back up for a second on that issue the court can consider which party has the ability to pay which was that which does not in this particular case the court consider the other factor which is who escalated the litigation the court specifically said that he did because michelle jackson as she did in that trial was she said i don't want any interest in the home i don't want any interest in the business you can have it all and that was her position from the from the outset why that was litigated why there was an account brought in and it's really up to graduate actually answer that now with any property that someone has allocated to them in a divorce they accept such as the business and the marital residence and things of that nature they should also take the debts that go along with that ok the debts that brad tried to bring out a trial with regard to the business where they phantom loans that were provided to him by his parents and i believe has his grandparents there was never any promissory note signed there was never any explicit agreement to repay it i believe in one instance he may have even placed it that check into his personal account as opposed to the business account and i think it's also what is also telling is that for a year while this litigation was going on this pitting business which at one time while they were married was incorporated small incorporated so brad jackson was clearly factually you know lies and legally doing business as something he was holding out as a corporation he was clearly using this bank account all along as his personal bank account sometimes averaging over the eight month period of time i believe at ten thousand dollars a month he was bringing in money paying all of his personal debts out of it evidence that was produced to it the record will reveal that there are some pertinent hoard portions of it affecting child support custody attorney's fees and things of that nature certainly considering the standard  for those loans where they were she identifies loans there's letters identifying them as loans and those are never of course and in addition to that she only had a kitchen waiver interest in the business if mr jackson agreed to take on all debts including loans on the house on the house they were security for the home when the house went belly up because they couldn't do that anymore could make those payments and they had to turn in those car my client to turn in both cars what he did was he borrowed of an old junker from his grandfather think it was maybe it was his uncle he testified to for a while to to go to these various car dealerships and do these auto detail things one of the car dealer said in order for us to keep referring his business to you you have to have something better here's the deal will meet with you when he did the down payment through them because they gave him a business to make down payment he didn't try to run a kickback money ten percent of that money immediately to this jackson as well for no reason whatsoever other than to just give her some money so he's trying to do the right thing and mr bremer saying oh you're spending money from us mr johnston the accountant said miss jackson screwed up the books when she had them and mr jackson was working diligently to get it back was he right was it perfect absolutely not mr johnston said but i now have an idea he said as to where things are going because i've got better records from mr jackson than i ever got from mr jackson when she was running a business mr bremmer talks about the business of that she was locked out of the business liz jackson up and moved in with her boyfriend and when she moved in with her boyfriend she took money out of the business account fifteen hundred dollars immediately didn't talk to mr jackson about it took it out of the council in the projection decided to take the name off the account and change the locks it was so that she wouldn't take more stuff so that she'd stop taking them that's the way ms jackson operated not just with the business not with regard to the law but also with regard to their son it was always about using those things as weapons against mr jackson the court did not realize that i think in some respects it realized that that somewhere in the two thousand and eight area and they're now trying to find a way to make it recover but there are a ton of debts out there that we're incur to try to keep that business afloat and this jackson now wants to walk away from his projects and continues to do the things he should've done thank you