It is a preference since the child lives with him and he is and has always been the only financial support for the child even during the short time he did not live with him. He wants the mother to be involved because even after all the wrong she did, he thinks of his child first. He knows his child will miss his mother. But to think someone who used the child for public assistance (on her own admision as she did not think there was anything wrong with that) and kept him from his father for money. Not to mention, just got her first job in 30 years, has no residence of her own, moved the child to 3 schools in one year in three states, has no means to be able to sufficienctly care for the child if left in her care has the same 50% chance of getting sole custody is preference. With the tables turned, there would be no hope of the father getting sole custody if he did any of that or if the child did not live with him now. The standard is not the same is what I am saying. He never wants the keep the child from the mother, but wants to be able to continue helping live the best life he can with both parents involved.



BOTH parents have an equal responsibility and the privilege to be involved in the child's life.
