|
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
LEANDER O. RICHMOND,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 01-138??? DM
Hon. Deborah Ross Adams
CANDY RICHMOND,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CHANGE CUSTODY
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, LEANDER O. RICHMOND, by himself and his Motion to Change Custody states as follows:
1. That the current Order for Custody was entered on January 17, 2006 and provides that Defendant mother has sole physical custody and that the parties share legal custody of the minor child, Quincy M. Richmond, date of birth October 16, 2000. (Exhibit #1)
2. That the Plaintiff father currently enjoys parenting time every other Thursday to Sunday and one mutually agreed upon weekday for a period of three hours during the school year. (It should be noted that the order provided Plaintiff with every other Friday through Monday however, as Defendant was unable to provide transportation for the minor child on Monday, Plaintiff consented to the change in schedule.)
3. On 6/22/2009 Defendant Mother handed Plaintiff, Father a box of Medications for the child. Plaintiff noticed that the medications were the usual asthma attack recovery medications. Plaintiff inquired about the physician and defendant stated that it was a new doctor. In tracking the history of this medication, Plaintiff discovered that there was the child was treated in the Botsford Emergency room on 4/16/2009. Defendant, Mother made no mention of this visit, at any time. Medical records from the visit note that Mother states that the child has been coughing for 2 days. Plaintiff feels that the child suffered unnecessarily and that this is a poor response time after so many attacks. The report also stated that “Mother ran out of Xopenex for nebulizer”. Dr. Todd Marcus gave very clear instructions and orders that the Xopenex was to be maintained and only to be administered once he instructed. Defendant was administering a steroid medication to the child without authorization from the childs doctor. (Exhibit # 2)
4. On 5/15/2007 Plaintiff Father visited the child at school and discovered that the child was experiencing an asthma attack. Defendant Mother claimed that she would be unable to take the child to the see a physician. Plaintiff Father took the child to see court ordered Physician Dr. Todd Marcus of Dr. Todd’s Pediatrics located in Livonia Mi. Dr. Marcus’s assessment was that attacks this severe were occurring to the child too frequently and can be avoided. The Dr. insisted on a face to face meeting with both parents present so that he could clarify and explain the dangers of the child’s condition, the risks associated with continued emergency medical intervention and the fact that death could result from continued failure to follow the medical plan that he had prescribed. Defendant Mother failed to show at the first meeting calling a short time before the meeting time to cancel. Dr. Marcus contacted Child Protective services to report mothers unwillingness to cooperate. After a phone call from CPS, Defendant attended the meeting and was thoroughly informed as to the above mentioned subjects. CPS made no report nor documentation of this incident.
5. Since 5/15/2007 the child has experienced frequent unnecessary asthma attacks while in the care of the Defendant Mother. That Plaintiff Father knows of, there were attacks on 11/23/2006, 12/12/2006, 5/15/2007, 10/25/2007, 12/20/2007, 10/3/2008, 4/16/2009, 6/18/2009 Some resulting in emergency room visits. On most occasions, the child was given to Plaintiff, father at the start of his parenting time while the child was in a state of attack.
6. On 5/17/2007 after being unable to reach the child via the daily phone call, Plaintiff drove to the home of Defendant Mother out of concern for the child. The child was with his grand mother at her home on Leslie. Defendant, Mother drove to her mothers house to intercept Plaintiff. Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to see or check on the child. Defendants actions instead, were designed to cause confrontation as she came out of the house and threatened to mace Plaintiff. The child witnessed this exchange. Plaintiff has an audio recording of the exchange.
7. On 12/20/2007 Plaintiff, Father received a call from the child’s teacher Mrs. Shumate. Mrs. Shumate stated that the child was having a “pretty bad day”. The school had contacted Defendant Mother who instructed the child to “Just rest for a while in the office”. Plaintiff, Father drove to the school, got the child and took him to see his PCP. The child had a dangerously low Blood Oxygen level of .93 and had to be treated. Once the levels were acceptable, the child was placed on the usual 5 day steroid treatment, Xopenex. Plaintiff feels that defendants lack of concern and action placed the child at serious risk, possibly of death.
8. In June of 2009, Plaintiff father learned that the childs prescription for his asthma medication, Accolate, which require monthly refills, had only been refilled by the defendant, Mother three times in 2008. As of 6/24/2009, the accolade had only been filled three times in 2009. The child’s Singular medication which also requires monthly refills had only been filled on 5 occasions in 2008 and as of 6/24/2009, has only been filled three times in 2009. (Exhibit # 4)
9. In April of 2009, defendant mother violated the courts order for the third time concerning the child’s court ordered physician. The current order states “At the time of the entry of this order, the childs Primary Care Physicians are Dr. Todd Marcus and Dr. Jason Golnick.” Defendant has claimed at previous court appearances that the doctor and his staff had refused to work with her and that she does not like the doctor. Plaintiff father inquired and discovered that the doctors’ office is not unwilling to work with the defendant mother but refused her afternoon appointments following her many no shows and last minute cancellations. (Exhibit # 1)
10. On 9/11/2008 Plaintiff discovered while visiting the childs school, that the child had experienced an asthma attack the previous week during school hours. Mr, Kade, the childs teacher explained how the child had no medication with him at the time of the attack and sat in the office. Mr. Kade went on to say that the child was sent to school the next day with his Advair. Defendant has been reminded by the plaintiff multiple times, that Advair will NOT stop an asthma attack. This is incident also marked the second year in a row that plaintiff discovered the incorrect medication in the childs presence. Both Parents were also informed by Pediatrician Todd Marcus on 5/22/2007 that Advair was a maintenance drug to be used with Singulair and that they would not help the child to recover from an attack. Both Plaintiff and Defendant were present as the doctor explained that Albuteral was to be used as a rescue inhaler. During both failures, plaintiff had prescriptions filled and returned to the school with instructions from the doctors office, on their usage. Plaintiff had another discussion with defendant about this incident.
11. On 10/3/2008 at 10:15pm Defendant Mother called Plaintiff Father rambling incoherently about the current condition of the child. In one call Defendant stated that the child was fine, then not ok, then she wasn’t sure. The end result was Plaintiff picking up the child at 11:15pm. Plaintiff noticed immediately that the child was in pretty bad shape in that the childs wheezing was very audible and he complained of chest pain and of being tired. Plaintiff administered 2 puffs of the Albuterol inhaler that he’d brought with him. Plantiff took the child to the Emergency Room because history has shown that the emergency inhaler can not bring a full recovery from the level of arrest that the child was in. (Exhibit # 5 )
12. On 10/6/2008, after having the child evaluated by PCP Dr. Marcus, Plaintiff took the child home to defendant Mother, gave her the Xopenex medication and an explanation of the treatment prescribed. On 10/7/2008, the child was dropped off at school by Defendant, Mother with a nebulizer and his Xopenex medication which is to be given every 4 hours. The school called Plaintiff, Father because they were unable to reach Defendant, Mother and had received no instructions for the machine or the medication. Plaintiff left work and drove 20 miles to the school to demonstrate the machine and dosage. Once at the school, plaintiff discovered, by questioning the child, that he had not received any medication since the previous evening. Defendant failed to administer medications.
13. On 10/9/2008 while picking the child up from school Plaintiff notices that the child still has 17 of his 24 pack of medication, Xopenex. On 10/10/2008 at the follow up appointment with Doctor Marcus, the doctor determined that the child was still wheezing and had not received his medication as instructed. The doctor ordered the child to the Fathers care until proper treatment was met and the child was out of the attack.
14. On 10/15/2008 that Defendant Mother deliberately lied to CPS Case Worker about the facts, dates and times of the attack in successful attempt to mask or hide her failure to provide the childs medication as directed. “SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT DUE TO HER TIGHT SCHEDULE SHE ASKED HER EX-HUSBAND TO TAKE QUINCY TO THE DOCTOR ON 10/6/2008. SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT QIUNCY WAS TREATED AND PRESCRIBED MEDICATION. SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT HER HUSBAND TOLD HER THAT DR. TODD WANTED QUINCY TO STAY WITH HIM UNTIL THE TREATMENT WAS OVER. SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT QUINCY HAS BEEN WITH HIS FATHER SINCE 10/8/2008. SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT SHE TOOK QUINCY TO THE DOCTOR ON 10/13/2008 AND QUINCY WAS STILL WHEEZING IT WAS BECAUSE HIS FATHER DID NOT GIVE QUINCY HIS MEDICATION. SHE INFORMED THE WORKER THAT WHEN QUINCY WAS FIRST DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA HER EX-HUSBAND WOULD NOT LET HER KEEP THE NEBULIZER, STATING THAT HE HAD TO GIVE IT BACK TO THE DOCTOR.” (Exhibit # 6)
A factual timeline surrounding this incident is as follows:
· Friday 10/3/08 Call that resulted Dad taking Quincy to E.R at 0045 on Saturday 10/4/08.
· Dad kept Quincy until seen by Primary on Monday 10/6/08 (follow up Fri)
· Dad returns Quincy to Mom on Monday 10/6/08 after Doctor Visit. Follow-up on 10/10/08
· Dad picks Quincy up from school on from Friday, 10/9/08 notices meds
· 10/10/08 Follow up with Dr Marcus. - Doctor orders Quincy to stay with Dad until attack is under control.
· Wednesday 10/15/08 dad took Quincy to the doctor for his follow-up where he was cleared.
15. Plaintiff, father feels that the Childrens Protective Services agency has failed miserably, to investigate properly, claims made by Plaintiff and by the childs’ Physician. In each investigation, the CPS case worker did NOT investigate defendant’s denial of claimed failure or wrong doing. The CPS case workers simply closed each investigation with no real attempt to verify claims. As a result, CPS has possibly been indirectly responsible for the many unnecessary asthma attacks, emergency room visits and the continued dangers which the child is exposed to in the continued failure by defendant to follow the prescribed medical plan. (Exhibit # 3)
16. On 10/10/2008 Pediatrician Todd Marcus instructed Plaintiff to keep the child in his care for his 5 day long asthma treatment or until he cleared the child of his wheezing. This is the second time that the doctor has done this following failure while in the defendants care.
17. Also on 10/10/2008 CPS was contacted, by the doctor, regarding this failed treatment which left the child in an asthma attack for an extended period of time. The CPS case worker made her first attempt to contact defendant on 10/11/08 and was finally successful in a phone interview on the 11/16/2008. (Exhibit 6) Plaintiff has noticed in each report that CPS does not see the child in his “normal” conditions as Defendant, Mother has days to prepare for their arrival. Plaintiff father began requesting a copy of this closed referral in December of 08. After three written request, a letter to the state ombudsman office, 19 phone calls to Carmen Billups and 6 months, Plaintiff, Father finally received an unsigned and incomplete copy of the requested report. When I pointed out the many errors to CPS supervisor Carmen Billups, her response was “Well that was over six months ago. What do you want us to do about it now?” Plaintiff feels that CPS should be forced to find the facts in these cases, record them accurately and make a new determination as to the conditions and dangers to which the child is exposed. These actions by CPS have failed the child.
18. At some time around July of 2002, the child sustained a very large severe burn to his left forearm during what seemed to be peculiar tale of how the burn occurred. Plaintiff was denied parenting time for a 2 month period during the burn. A show cause motion was filed and make up parenting time was awarded. Defendant Mother has claimed in deposition and to a CPS case worker that the child was seen for the burn by the emergency room staff at Detroit Childrens Hospital. Plaintiff did not discover until 9/22/2006, that DMC was able to produce a document stating that the child had NOT been treated at any of their facilities. (Exhibit # 7) This is information that plaintiff feels a CPS case worker should know but failed to verify. Plaintiff also feels that the defendants’ continued telling of this explanation, even in the face of proof to the contrary, points to a very serious problem with the quality of information provided by defendant concerning the child, during these and past appearances. (Exhibit # 3)
19. On 8/25/2003 a referral was made to CPS. Plaintiff complained about a lack of access to the child, the child’s extremely poor dental hygiene having caused his rotting teeth and the lack of power and running water in the home. After her discussion with Defendant, CPS case worker Lawana Washington, documented “Quincy did NOT have rotten teeth in his mouth at all, nor did he have permanent rings on his buttocks as alleged by the Father.” On 4/2/2004 the child endured $759.00 worth (Exhibit # 8) of dental work which included three fillings and eventually a root canal. Plaintiff believes that CPS worker took his claims lightly as Defendant quickly claimed, again, that Plaintiff is merely trying to get custody.
20. On 5/14/2004 Plaintiff picked the child up from the defendant’s home. The child was eating a Sponge Bob popsicle. The child had three agonizing bouts of pain that each caused him to scream and hold his mouth within 15 minutes of being picked up. Once home, Plaintiff called defendant who admitted knowing about the pain but failed to mention it and did nothing about it because, as she described, “It goes away”. The result was a scheduled Pulpotomy for 5/20/2004. Defendant cancelled the 5/20 appointment 30 minutes prior to the appointment stating that she had her own doctor appointment. Dr. Jason Golnick issued a warning, to Defendant Mother, that if the child was not in his office the following day for the procedure that he would be contacting the Sherriff’s department. The procedure took place the next day but a more invasive Root Canal procedure was done because defendant failed to administer medication properly. Defendant admitted this to the Dr. Golnick. (Exhibit # 9) If the prescribed antibiotic had been administered as instructed, swelling and infection in the nerve would have been minimized and a root canal would not have been necessary. To this day, the defendant continues to exhibit the same lackadaisical attitude concerning the child’s medical and health needs.
21. Plaintiff has been told directly by the child that he has been instructed by defendant, to lie in responses to questions about medication and his health. The child has been instructed to say that he is getting his medication every day and that he feels fine. Plaintiff feels that instructing or forcing the child to lie, especially to a parent, has and will continue to cause severe damage to the childs moral development and cause the child unnecessary stress and confusion. Plaintiff needs to be able to trust his child’s responses as it can be vital to providing for and protecting the child. Plaintiff is requesting that the court allow the child to be interviewed by a counselor to determine the validity of these claims.
22. While in the care of the defendant, the child often wears dirty clothing and can almost never remember the last time that he had a shower or bath or been washed up. On 3/29/2009 before dressing the child to go with defendant, plaintiff marked the childs clean shirt using a permanent red marker. The shirt was marked on the stitching of the button on the right sleeve with red ink. There was also a red mark placed in the zero of the size inside the collar. On each school day the week of March 30th to April 3rd, the child was observed, by the plaintiff, wearing the same shirt. On 4/6/2009 the child was wearing the same now filthy shirt still bearing stains that were noted the previous week. Principal Williams was made aware of this as well as the child’s teacher, Mr. Johnson, who allowed the daily verification. The child is often seen wearing underwear and socks that are extremely soiled and must be discarded. The school has documented this unkemptness with the childs’ sibling and on at least two occasions as corrective action was required on the part of defendant, Mother.
23. Plaintiff Father feels that defendant mother has failed at almost every turn to abide by this order and more importantly, to provide the very essential medical treatments needed by the child.
24. That Defendant’s continued failure to comply with this court’s orders, numerous documented medical failures and continued misrepresentations to this court constitute proper cause for custody to be amended.
25. On 9/4/2008 Defendant was found to be non compliant by referee Schewe with regard to parenting time and daily phone contact. During this hearing, Plaintiff read from a transcript, the exchange between Judge Adams and Defendant, Mother regarding her reasons for non compliance at a previous hearing. Defendant denied the exchange as false. Plaintiff has witnessed Defendant Mother lie in the face of undeniable truth and in front of the referee. Plaintiff feels that this speaks to the lack of respect that the defendant has for the order and the court.
26. On 11/8/2002 Judge Kathleen McDonald issued a warning that she wanted the order followed.
27. On 12/7/03 Referee Calandro awarded make up parenting time to Plaintiff Father.
28. On 3/1/2006 Judge Teranes warned Defendant council that if she continued to be non compliant that she would be held in contempt.
29. On 9/27/2007 Defendant Mother was found to be in contempt and sanctioned $500.00 for her violations.
30. On 9/4/2009 Plaintiff Father was awarded make up parenting time and Defendant Mother was fined an additional $100 for violations.
31. The child, is now attending Durfee Elementary school located at 2470 Collingwood Street in Detroit. Durfee Elementary school is a k-8 school and children must pass through metal detectors and have their bags inspected each morning while entering school. The school also has a full staff of uniformed security guards as well as the presence of at least one DPS Police officer at all times. Plaintiff feels that this is an extremely intimidating environment and will be detrimental to any chances of the child getting a good education.
32. Durfee Elementary school is located next to Central High school. The start and dismissal times for both buildings, all grades is the same. All students are released at 2:24pm M-Th and at 1:45pm on Fridays. The potential for disaster is high and could leave the child in a very dangerous situation. Plaintiff, father has already observed some extremely unacceptable behavior and language from passersby while picking the child up from school.
33. On 9/10/2009 while picking the child up from school, Plaintiff and the child observed DPS Officers arresting a high school student who was resisting.
34. On 9/10/2009 picking the child up from school, Plaintiff and the child observed what appeared to be faculty members breaking up a fight between at least three students at the high school.
35. Durfee Elementary has consistently scored at 50% of less than the state average on MEAP tests. 2009 results for Durfee 4th grade reading was 44% with the state average being 83%. 2009 results for Durfee 4th grade writing was 20% with the state average being 44%. 2009 results for Durfee 4th grade math was 56% with the state average being 88%. (Source of results: https://oeaa.state.mi.us/oeaa/directory/index.asp)
36. If the child lived with the Plaintiff, his school of attendance would be Tonda Elementary which is located at 46501 Warren Road Canton, Michigan. Tonda is a k-6 school and has a size and age appropriate environment. 2009 results for Tonda 4th grade reading was 90% with the state average being 83%. 2009 results for Tonda 4th grade writing was 55% with the state average being 44%. 2009 results for Tonda 4th grade math was 97% with the state average being 88%. (Source of results: https://oeaa.state.mi.us/oeaa/directory/index.asp)
37. The Detroit Public School system in a state of emergency. The district is under funded, in disarray and rife with corruption. Too few opportunities are available to the child in the Detroit Public School system. This child has another option. That option should be considered.
38. It is the Plaintiff Fathers belief that the child will receive better educational opportunities in an environment that is not full of the distractions that are caused by the foul language, violent language, violent behavior, uniformed security and police presence, and influence and intimidation brought by the much larger children. Durfee Elementary school is an environment that is not conducive with receiving an education that will best prepare him for a productive and quality future.
39. Plaintiff Father has appealed to Defendant Mother about the childs education and choice of schools. Plaintiff has suggested that he is the parent that responds to all emergencies, medical needs, Parent Teacher conferences, other school participation and making sure that the school has the childs medication and its instructions. Defendant has responded on each occasion “I’m not ready for that”. Defendants’ most recent response to changing the childs current school from Durfee to Tonda, was “Well since I know that you’re not doing anything to try to help ME, I will consider my options and look at something else but Canton is out of the question.” Plaintiff Father feels that Defendant is not making a decision based on the best interest of the child but that her decision is based on some other personal matter.
40. Many times Defendant Mother has falsely stated, in court, that the child is not exposed to violence. The Child, now almost 9 years old, is able to recall a few incidents of violence in the home. The child recalls these as happening in the night and as “very scary”.
41. Plaintiff Father requests that the court allow a third party interview of the child these truths will come to light.
42. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint or allow interview by a qualified professional to evaluate the child.
43. On July 23rd 2009, after reviewing all past files, complaints made concerning the 10/09 incident and proof provided by Plaintiff, North Central Child and Family Services - Section Program manager, Traci Lee-Brown stated in email : “Mr. Richmond, I TOTALLY understand your dilemma and agree 100% with you to file for a change of custody, immediately. I believe that this would be in the best interest for Quincy and his well-being”.
I state that the aforementioned information is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
_________________________
LEANDER O. RICHMOND
12 Best interest Factors Case # 01-138???DM
as prepared by Plaintiff
Richmond
vs.
Richmond
(1) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.
- Defendant Mother has on numerous occasions, tried to destroy the childs understanding of his relationship with his step-mother and step brothers. On multiple occasions during the daily phone contact, the childs step siblings have asked to speak with the child. When they were on the phone, the calls were disconnected. The child has stated to the defendant that his mother hung up the phone. The child has also indicated by demonstration, how his mother listens to his phone calls with plaintiff Father by placing her ear next to the child’s ear during calls. The child has said many times that “My mommy said that Martino and Angle are not my brothers”.
(2) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.
- Defendant Mother has displayed many many times that she has a “the ends justify the means” mentality”. She is willing to lie in court, under oath as long as she gets what she wants regardless of how these lies will effect the child and his quality of life. Defendant has also instructed the child to lie to the Plaintiff, Father about numerous subjects. Teaching a child to lie can destroy the base of a moral foundation in the child. Plaintiff, Father understands that it is imperative that children learn to be honest at an early age, in spite of the consequences. Understanding and accepting consequence is vital to the child learning to make good decisions which is essential to becoming a responsible adult.
(3) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
- The medical failures by the Defendant are too numerous to mention here. On almost each occasion, Plaintiff, Father has been the responsible party in providing medical care in a timely manner. Plaintiff understands the importance of and keeps all follow-up doctor visits. Plaintiff is the only parent that has sought or maintained any dental care for the child. Plaintiff, Father is the primary provider or proper medical and dental needs. On one occasion, Defendant Mother, by her own admission, failed to medicate the child properly resulting in a full root canal to the child. On two occasions, the childs primary care physician ordered the child to the Plaintiff, fathers care following the Defendants failures to provide medication that would provide recovery from an asthma attack.
(4) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
- In the care of the Defendant, the child is instructed to remove his dirty , soiled school clothes, place them in his drawer and wear them the next day. The exterior of the home of the Defendant is in a serious state of disrepair. The kitchen window in the rear of the home is and has been broken for more than 9 years and is covered by a garbage bag. More than three times, utilities to the home were turned off for extended periods of time and the home was heated with kerosene heaters. Sections of the brick facing on the home are falling away from the home. The back yard has been extremely overgrown by a willow tree, gets no sun light and appears unsafe.
(5) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.
- Plaintiff, Father has been in a relationship with his wife (Amanda Richmond) since August of 2001, without interruption, separation of other marital discord.
- Defendant Mother has maintained a relationship with her now husband, Paul Gates since as early as January of 02’. Defendant first told Plaintiff that Paul was her cousin. The question of who Paul was arose because Paul was bringing the child to Plaintiff. During Defendants relationship with Paul, 10 October of 2003 Defendant married Jodie Davis and remained married until sometime in 2006. The child has discussed with Plaintiff that Jodie was his new step dad. This discussion took place without the removal of Paul, as defendant’s boyfriend, from the life of the child. During her marriage to Jodie, defendant never resided with her Husband Jodie. Defendant Mother admitted to Plaintiff Father that she married Jodie for the money which he provided her.
(6) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
- See Statement above.
- Defendant has been dishonest in every court appearance in responding to questions about her actions, the care that the child is receiving, living conditions and medical care received by the child. In our most recent appearance, Defendant was denying statements made by Judge Adams and herself as they were being read from transcript.
- Defendant is not responsible in her actions and is dishonest in an attempt to hide them from view.
- Despite any consequence to the child, defendant refuses to be honest about the care received by the child. Defendants dishonesty blurs the courts vision of the facts and continues the childs exposure.
(7) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(8) The home, school, and community record of the child.
- In the Plaintiff Fathers care, the child’s video and electronic access is limited. The children are outside on sunny days playing in the back yard with other neighborhood children. The children are encouraged to read a book nightly. Reading is highly visible as Angel is in Kumon and Martino has vision therapy, both require nightly homework or exercises.
(9) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.
(10) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.
- (Repeated) Defendant Mother has on numerous occasions, tried to destroy the childs understanding of his relationship with his step-mother and step brothers. On multiple occasions during the daily phone contact, the childs step siblings have asked to speak with the child. When they were on the phone, the calls were disconnected. The child has stated to the defendant that his mother hung up the phone. The child has also indicated by demonstration, how his mother listens to his phone calls with plaintiff Father by placing her ear next to the child’s ear during calls. The child has said many times that “My mommy said that Martino and Angle are not my brothers”.
(11) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
- On 5/7/2003 there was an arrest made at the home of the Defendant in response to a “Trouble/Disturbance” police call. Detroit Police were unable to provide details about this incident but Plaintiff believes it to have been a fight between the Defendants husband and boyfriend.
- On 9/20/2003 Police responded to a “FT B/E Disturbance” at the address of the Defendant.
- On 11/22/2003 Police responded to a “FT B/E Disturbance” at the address at the address of the defendant.
- The child (Quincy M. Richmond) has a vivid memory in which he describes “I was sleeping, then I heard some yelling, then I looked in the hall way and saw my mom on the ground and Paul was on top of her”.
- The child also has a memory of his mother attacking his step mother, Amanda Richmond.
(12) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.
-
- Defendant and plaintiff were called to the school to address Defendant refusing to pick up the child claiming that it was the Fathers responsibility. The child was stranded at the school and Plaintiff Father had to respond from Canton, MI. defendant was more than an hour late for the meeting with the schools Principle and Social worker. When the office staff called to confirm that defendant was in fact coming to the meeting, she argued then hung up on school employees. It was later determined in court that the Plaintiff was “supposed” to pick the child up at 4:30pm which would be at the home of the defendant. Defendant was awarded another adjustment to the order to accommodate her desires.
- In April of 09’ Plaintiff was complimented on the improvements to the hygiene of Donovan Gates Richmond. Plaintiff inquired further and was told that the child sent to school looking as if he were pulled out of bed and handed directly to the school, hair, teeth and clothing all in poor condition. The school told the Plaintiff that they’d had two meetings with the Mother and her boyfriend on the condition of Donovan. At this point, Plaintiff informed the office that Donovan was not his child though he was the brother of Quincy, the child in this case.
- On 11/18/2008 Defendant Mother, while sitting in her vehicle at the drive through of a White Castle, was slumped over the wheel and unresponsive. Police were notified and responded as did EMS. Defendant was revived and given sobriety tests. Defendants Blood Alcohol Content was .22 and she was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol.
- On 6/14/2004 while Quincy, age 3 was present, Angel, age 4, and Martino age 5 were sitting in the back seat, Defendant opened the passenger side door where Plaintiffs Fiancée was seated, grabbed her by the hair and pulled her from the car. All three children were traumatized.
- Defendant Mother has violated their custody and parenting time order more than 100 times and been brought to court on Show Cause motions more than 7 times. Defendants most recent appearance was on 9/4/09 and the same violations continued immediately that same evening and as of 9/9/09, have yet to be corrected.
|