.Secondly the mother has been there for the child’s entire life, and the father came back when the child was 7 months. He had not been there to watch his baby “grow up” and he wasn’t acting like much of a parental figure by any means.

~So I think the judge made the correct decision for letting Mary have sole custody of the child and lifting the rule that the child had to stay in North Bay. With the evidence that the father was not in the childs life the entire time anyways, and the drug and alcohol abuse on top of that…there is potential for relapses and the child should not be subject to it. The mother seems a lot more suited to be caring for a child then the father does. Given the circumstances of the case and his background.

*I do however think visitation rights are something the father should def. have. He does need to keep in constant contact with his child. Because she should not have to grow up w/o a father figure.

OK, I would say i would award custody to the mother with visitation to the father. I would also restrict the mother ability to remove the child from a reasonable distance from the father until its emancipation. The reason for the mother is the substance abuse the father had history with.

A child does reasonably well with both parents in its life. Courts have a tendency to try and foster that philosophy.