gain leverage in a custody proceeding which resulted in the judicial kidnapping of a minor child from fire logical mother and separating the minor child from the only sibling all without any evidence of abuse  voluntarily relinquish such that the time the case went to trial the g a o after he thousand dollars in fees could not report whether one house was superior to the other but that the mother child law requires third parties to prove standing before reaching the issue of best interest the standard wireman is designed to safeguard the natural parents your right to the children separate hearings on standing in best interests is clearly the better procedure the process of having both of these issues at the same time is divergent from the burden created by the rebuttable presumption and undermine any claim that the issue of standing with actually occurred in this case the proceedings that best there is no right more sacred in our society than the fundamental right to our children protected by the constitution of the united states the legislature has adopted safeguards for this fundamental right it is known as stand is striking in this case that based on their own verified magician for protection filed december fourth two thousand and fifteen the minor trial within the biological mother's custody since october and the grandparents were receiving visitation to see sixteen as such give pelleas paternal grandparents did not have standing in this case to bring a petition for grandparents visitation let alone a petition for custody the issue is whether at the time of filing their plea which was december second two thousand and fifteen seen on the issue is whether at that time mother had voluntarily and indefinitely relinquished physical custody such that the minor child was not in the physical custody of her mother at that time the overwhelming documentary evidence in this case supports the conclusion that mother was not only actively involved in her daughter's life but she's the one who went to all the medical treatments she made those decisions consider it being the trial court we're supposed to decide growth of these factors are present not the trial court if the court must get to the issue of best interests in the court must this  visitation that issue is what this court must determine in terms of whether or not there was standing at that time i believe the facts in the wasit or the fact and the decision that this case should be remanded based solely on the purpose of the issue of standing because the child was with mother since october the n word addressed that beis finding that although the child was in the the term and in the court's ruling was that ok so what they waited until december to file their petition my point is that there is no basis in law that would support that conclusion because we do agree that funeral lateral change why is that different in this case it's different because this child over thirty days was with mother it stands for the proposition in support the conclusion if we have to get that but we don't have to get to the the abuse of discretion in terms of factual issues that came in outside the bounds of reason all we can be easy in and appropriate remedy is hey you didn't file this within a reasonable amount of time that lends to the eye argument that this was ok this was the way it was this was but my point is i think the court was distracting if we if we want to spend our our time on those issues we will look the court did not hear the issue of  may be brought by personal appearance but only if the child is not a physical custody if one of her parents that's a threshold require correct but if  that requirement is presently given case there's no steps to requirement stand and because of that the issue of standing was muddled and the statute sets and the like this the case for that i that i regressed says that that is reversible error if there's any prejudice no other way why can't the judge internally within the court's discretion to say i'm going to address the question of whether the child is in the physical custody one of those one of the parents which is the threshold question responsibility and i think that would be appropriate because there is there is a definitive time in moment in time that we are concentrating on which is the time around when this pleading was filed in is if we're talking about that issue then if we're going with you if use of discretion all of the factual evidence stands for the fact that mom was involved in her daughter's life to some degree even the trial court in his own ruling said primary custody was by grandma grandma that's disputed but that in itself is a traditional determination that mother was at least to some extent in the child's life and that's all there has to we don't we dispute that this that determination but my point is is that this case should be resolved and can be resolved on the issue of standing and if we want to talk about you know the fact that the judge except if you take the conclusion that the trauma court said that the youngs were in charge of this child since birth and then came into court and said the child had been immunized and so how so therefore is my client and that was that were we are you five days on everything going back ten years and and that's where the prejudice took place i'm confident that the court wasn't distracted by coun isn't in fact that's what those cases are about is the fact it was you have to take a look at what cost to possession versus yesterday because if we take your rationale whoever gets the child immediately prior to the filing of the window since you were talking about well since october child and with the mother and we're now in december so of course isn't it reasonable to believe the court had to look at a rock or a period of time  i will sit in my my belief is if i was sitting where you gentlemen are your honors are today i think thirty days is the appropriate window why is that because within thirty days the child has adjusted to whatever it is she doing if it mother is completely which is not the case if mother is completely absent from the child's life for whatever reason but comes back in and initiate and is involved and is there then then that's all she has to do just have to be a great parent she just has to be there so  trial before and keep the child out of reach we're the days that's all yes and i think that's rational because the fact is that with and when if if this actually happens if the child is actually removed from a parental this is not happening i'm going straight to the courthouse specially with people with means of over four hundred thousand dollars a year they would've been there immediately but no they acquiesced and they were shooting visitation so there's there's no standing even on the issue of visitation and you know i'm here today to fight for the rights of an injured party and this court has the power in the duty and that's all that's necessary she was involved with school shoes and drove the teachers the teacher said the g l said that she's loved it's a boisterous home she feels comfortable in her mother's house if there was this division there was this there's this separation there wouldn't have been that relationship returns she had medical insurance she went to all the doctor's appointments according to the doctors but pediatricians testimony the next door neighbors said i saw mom with daughter every day which the youngs own son said i was clear that a trial court's findings of facts are subject to review for manifest error a trial court has broad discretion and awarding custody and parenting responsibilities and such an award will not be overturned except when it is in the manifest w of the evidence against the manifest weight of the evidence manifestly on just where there is a clear abuse of discretion and notably as this court today has already pointed out there is a strong and compelling presumption that the trial court cook the entity closest to the litigation has made the proper custody determination generally a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's determination of credibility because the trial court has the superior vantage point which cannot be reproduced from the cold record to observe and judge the witnesses demeanor and credibility the trial court is therefore in a better position to evaluate credibility temperaments personalities and capabilities of both parents i would suggest to you in all of my years of practice trial court proceedings that have been transcribed into an old record and reviewing that sometimes we can see from that cold record well enough what has transpired to determine how the trial  rt made its determination i would suggest to you in this case being present for the proceedings that took place over five days just on the remaining issues alone was paramount to the trial court's determination this scene of the facial expressions the demeanors the gestures the tone and intonation of how folks conducted themselves within the court room was terrible there was a substantial amount of evidence provided to this judge so it looks if today we're faced with two major issues before this court and that is one whether or not the trial court made a proper finding and reference to standing and handled that procedurally in the correct way and then to if that is accepted whether in fact the trial court made a proper determination to allocate journeys primary care responsibilities to the elements in terms of standing i disagree with counsel's argument that bad issue must be bifurcated from the best interest portion in a family court proceeding there is no authority to supports that in fact the brownfield decision which comes out of this district pacifically stated in that case but the crile trial force determination to handle the standing national alongside  remaining was proper there was no prejudice to the parents in that case by doing so and i'd suggest that that's because the evidence regarding those issues is so completely intertwined and necessary in order for the court to make a standing or raise and standing as an affirmative defense in the proper time for pleading mind you because standing is part and parcel to six zero one point two six zero two point one proceedings i'm not sure that was a great defect however i do believe if paul's contrary to counsel's argument that there needed to be a separate hearing because counsel and his client never raised an objection to standing through an affirmative defense the court the how counsel for the apple line chose to object to standing filing a motion to dismiss the proceedings suggesting that the court needed to have some type of bifurcated proceeding during the trial court proceedings when in fact they have a lot had never filed an affirmative defense related to stand that was never brought to the courts protect the tension in that regard for me normal it was then it was based on the standing issue but the requirement that created the motion for the i believe with this type of standing you're doing your honor this is not the type of standing that relates to legal capacity or those the type of things we see under six thousand nine hundred standing this relates to the physical custody standing that we've been talking about earlier today and that is outlined within our briefs that standing is part and parcel to six o two point one and i believe the case law is clear that that has to be raised if there's a concern that standing does not exist as an affirmative defense within the time for pleadings however this together we also know that for the standing issue there are requirements for the court to determine even if in fact standing hasn't been waived a party to the case the first being who is responsible for the cure and wel child prior to the initiation of the proceedings and so council today is suggesting there is some time limit for that a four day time limit because one case actually put a quantifiable number on the days before a four months how that would relate to standing and physical custody in this case there was testimony at trial by the youngs as to why from october twenty fifth to december fourth there hadn't been a filing by them they indicated they were hoping they could work things through with court or they were hoping they could keep the peace i don't believe trial courts nor reviewing courts want to encourage people to raise directly to a courthouse the minute there is conflict with a child before attempting to work through that process together that process within that church thirty day timeframe did not work to journey's benefit and so litigation was pursued and properly self and when the court heard what had occurred it properly entered an order of protection to keep this child's life from being overturned after almost ten years of living with the young i would agree that the our state properly protects the fundamental right to reach your children however we also have many cases that state that that right is not absolute the child is a precious gift but with that gift comes an enormous amount of responsibility commitment time worry courtney hermann chose to turn over those responsibilities to her daughter to the youngs shortly after this little girl was born and the trial court determined properly so based upon the significant evidence presented to it that the young had really provided everything for this child not only her daily care but also had handled all of her medical care her educational care her tutoring through sylvan and skills for out in the reading program her extra curricular care her spiritual care everything that's part and parcel to being a parent that was handled by the young and judge  even made a statement that said he believed that the reason courtney herman wasn't all to the extent she was because that was forced by crystal who ensured that there was a relationship silicate between this mother and this child her husband ensured that david caring had a relationship with this child all of the things that we want historial caregivers to do for a child and so when a biological parent steps in after that length of time were a child is flourishing and being raised in a loving nurturing home where there are parties who are dedicating their time their resources their love everything to this child to trump that essentially out of the blue for self serving purposes and use the parent tie as the trump force that's exactly what six o two point one is designed to protect children is the record sure we're here for  you're not going to see this child anymore and i have cited in my brief to some of the statements that were provided and as a lot of profanity lot of arguing took the child's phone so if you are not going to contact her she's not going to contact you ultimately the youngs learned that what courtney wanted to do was move the child to the state of florida i don't know if this was a need jerk i have now are going to be this child's mother will mature decision  no information as to spur this but to those worker yeah other than she wanted to leave the state and she decided she wanted to be the primary caregiver to this child and it's our position that's exactly what six or two point one is designed around that your parental tie does not using the same word again trump what's necessarily in a child's best interests and of course folks will say this is an age of blended families sound different kinds of caregivers are providing care for children i would suggest that's probably been going on since the beginning of time grandparents on uncles neighbors friends whomever may be raising a child what's important to the nurturing of that child is what the youngs have done for this child since the beginning they have done all of the heavy lifting so when council states it is client was involved the record is clear her involvement was because crystal young encouraged and in some cases made her be in alt there also with the credibility issues when we talk about credibility there are a couple things in this proceeding that stood out as being very significant when we're trying to believe what was really happening over the course of this ten years the first relates to the medical records that were presented by courtney hermann to the trial or ironically her exhibit f listed on its facts page from the custodian of records that i believe there were sixty eight pages actually her the document presented to the trial court consisted of sixty seven the twenty six page which was missing was the page that talked about how the pediatrician that was located by the young had made they had made appointments with her to get this child well baby care after learning that they believed ms herman had been lying to them about the kind of baby care this child had been receiving dr rosa put in those records that she had been advised by courtney herman the child had all of her as she'd been that the health department dr rose of reached out to get those records none existed that document was missing that was concerning to the core the second document that was very concerning with this lease that was provided to the child's school now ms young and her mother denied that either one of them had provided that document but this document was provided nonetheless with the document it was a lease that was presented to the child's elementary school presumably for the purpose of allowing her to attend that elementary school it was identical to a lease that courtney her minute executed with a different apartment within the same subdivision a year prior but everything was identical if you compare the two the initials are the presented to the school there was a document a legal document lease that was doctored and our trial court was concerned about that it goes to truthful what is the trial court saybrook trial court stated that it was concerned that documents had been doctored in the states as your position the guardian ad litum i believe did a thorough job interviewing different individuals the guardian ad litem did not give a compelling recommendation other than she believed the journey wanted to have things the way they are the way they are at the time of these proceedings and for nine months prior to final hearing was living primarily with the young trial court's order and hearing the trial court's repair scuse me oral rulings that were provided to us in person i believe the trial court made his determination more on the evidence presented to it and that determination was clearly also based upon the demeanor and the credibility of the witnesses presented one of the things that courtney hermann was trying to suggest at trial was that in fact the youngs were lying about the amount of time journey spent with them the youngest presented very detailed testimony that this child was in their care most of every week that testimony was actually cooperated by court herman's own witness repeat we testified that the youngs were at bus stop every morning and every afternoon which would make no sense if this child were seen in their mother's care was cooperated by their neighbor who was not their friend who did not have a vested interest in this of a geisha and said i presume she lived there i saw her there all the time or me herman's testimony also refuted by that of her sister and her mother who didn't make mention of the amount of time the child spent with the youngs and all and i actually contradicted one another as i outlined within my brief and so i believe judge most of the stock within what he observed what he saw and what was going on within those trial court proceedings in addition to other documentary evidence that was presented so without your honour's i believe this at this is a wonderful child and i agree with counsel that we do not want to tread lightly on the parent's right to raise his her own her own child but when you have a situation such as this were a child comes into the world within a few months the reins for lack of a better word are turned over to a third party to raise that child and that occurs for the substantial period of time the bulk of this child's minority at the time of trial live in the care of a third party and that child is flourishing all the bases are covered and then some and on top of that has a wonderful relationship with her biological parents as the scylla tainted by the grandparents how to court and herman expect a trial court to deny that lifestyle and that love for this child simply because she raises the i'm the parent card and i don't mean to sound disrespectful to her when i say that but this  we've talked about earlier comes with a huge amount of responsibility that courtney herman chose to hand off to the young thank you thank you but what was her was mom says i've never submitted a lease before why would i do it again i just take this one piece of paper and and then give that to them and it was missing on who testified she's the one who actually took this information to the school but yet i do believe this issue should be and can be and then the courts duty is to resolve this on the issue of standing but i also feel at this point necessary to address certain factual  evidence in this case health insurance c three forty four food c three forty six housing c four zero seven and world current school in our own school district which is a different school district in the  took care of this child for this girl's entire life when they didn't even have a bed for that that that that the child that a pediatrician is one of a large bigots missions going to sleep with an infant it defies all logic but let's get to the determinative testimony in this case that the petitioner's own son so this is the young's own son testified that when he was living with them from two thousand and five to two thousand and seven journey was not living in that crystal says that in two thousand and eight started spending some more time with them that krystal said of that from two thousand and nine to two thousand and fifteen the arrangement was if courtney collins said well if you've got nothing you can come pick up journey and i would go getter volume apps page seventy seven mr revie testified that he lived across from courtney from two thousand and ten to two thousand and fourteen he saw courtney journey almost daily he saw their daughters would play together as sleep overs that his daughter would sleep it courtney's would journey and hurt his daughter like the way courtney cook catfish that the other neighbor said that from there's no question that these these people had some time with their daughter and if they provide transportation and took on lavish trips but my gal fostered that relationship and she never relinquished she all the documents the pediatrician says mom was there every time the facts don't support the conclusion and this court has got to to remedy this and and i'm asking this court to look at the facts look at the issues apply the law and the law is that this child was in the physical custody of her mother because that's what the evidence is that's what it was and we're asking the court to turn the child to the mother and remand case because that's the right thing to do