older child that has a relationship with this child the mother of god a child of her own who has to be have been taken away from and who did not have much relationship with this child sierra point in time and all there was further testimony given that the father's family specifically his mother and cousins and other family members lived in relation to this child had close relationships with sierra during his time frame that there was little extended family contact on the part of the mother sided family because her family lived outside of the year and she had difficulties with her family and did not have a very close upbringing by them lived and would watch the child when the cajuns where she would visit the cousins the child was not it is not a school age currently the best certainly there was testimony given regarding the father wanting the child to attend school and heari addition to she didn't necessarily want to say that the patient hadn't really looked at that location wasn't really taking that place for a choice of school or any other reason you know basically kind of mothers in her own temporary situation with the testimony before the work at that point in time herself one of the partners separated you know certainly the child has a good relationship you know with the mother and there is a relationship there but in terms of any extended persons relating to the mother it just wasn't there and there wasn't any extended persons and you know the child was only in daycare by the mother at some point in time after the party separated so the child really did in daycare for a couple of months i believe the time that we went to trial in this addition by the mother in this case regarding her own mental health issues she has a history of mental health difficulties as a youth had attended a suicide she admitted to having attempted suicide and to late two thousand and twelve she admitted to having been diagnosed with bipolar within six months of being in court for this case that she had manic episodes that she had difficulties falling asleep she would fall asleep at the drop of a hat wh only evidence on the record is her stating that she was getting treatment and now she does basically fine i mean that was essentially you know the evidence presented is everything to me how this all this out and that everything's fine there was also testimony from her that she admitted that these problems had been part of the reason that she had difficulties with the father of her other child that she would not speak to you within the last year from a different place and ways in town she had lost custody of her older daughter and was actually not factor in terms of the father's night what we think really concerns the big the interest of this child in terms of making a permanent you know word and consideration taking into account the stability of this child that we don't believe was considered by the child wor evenings like the child overnight with the daycare provider who could only watch that friend and not be in daycare to watch this child over night never informed him that she didn't care didn't he did not know the child was in daycare up until she asked him to take the child up from daycare right before trial and apparently she didn't call the child a couple months before that she was taking the child to the doctor not he and more he found out only a child  you know if the parties are if they did they still attended the same church that she would keep the child you know from talking to him it's that type of behavior that we believe demonstrates that she's now willing to continue to facilitate a relationship was not the best person case certainly the living situation was precarious not the best there was no testimony given our activities that this child did with the mother their relationship if there is a yard you know they gave those things you know is that supposed to be presumed until she was free to have years ago the only witness that was before judge moore that didn't have any interest in this case was a daycare provider her name was  stronger knockers her desk her schooling so the father had worked during the day he didn't have the time he couldn't stand in this office more than fifteen minutes because he couldn't he had to get work the mother is the one who has found a other case the other trial that was a different court case a different judge and a whole different matter and yet actually he has some problems and yes the mother has also had some problems but so that with me to get her parents get her brother to come back and help her move they say she didn't have a relationship with her parents but her brother didn't hesitate one minute to come back to weary and help her move her stuff out of the house he made it very that she had had to affairs while living with him right and when he found out about the second one he told her to get out no that's not the not true that's what's in the brief and that's not true no overnight visitation during school no i would bet he is he doesn't i don't think you get to talk to school because he is in miriam works in and he has a home round the world so i don't trial every tuesday and thursday overnight and every other weekend that's pretty close to having equal time being here for our child's work and the evidence of where the work was that he didn't even know the child was in day care to know that there was even division of labor that they used they were opposition they cared for the child both parties and it they both provided here for the child no one did more than the other they just did it in different shifts as all parents do in trying to work with each other and you know get your working during the day then obviously if the other one's going to take the child to a doctor during the day it only makes common sense it doesn't mean on all of this and you don't want to be involved it doesn't mean you're not a primary caretaker and the evidence was