This was the part I was referring to Papa, sorry I couldn't post earlier, bolded parts by me:
I ordered the case file in the parties 2005 Paternity case, including having all hearings transcribed. Upon reviewing the court file, I found that my client had not been completely honest with me regarding her involvement in the Paternity proceedings of 2005. The Court file reflected an Affidavit of Service of the original Petition for to Establish Paternity, personally served on Crystal Sheffield. Crystal then missed the Final Hearing, and the Court entered a Final Judgment of Paternity in favor of the Father. Ms. Sheffield then wrote a 10 letter to the Court explaining that she had never been served with the paperwork or a Notice of Hearing. The Court granted a rehearing of the case, and Ms. Sheffield was represented by counsel, Charles Behm, Esq., in those proceedings. At the Final Hearing, Ms. Sheffield's attorney was not in the Courtroom, pursuant to the transcript. The Court took testimony from both parties during the Final Hearing. The testimony reflects that
Crystal did not have a job or job prospects at the time of the trial, that she had used drugs during the relationship, that she had missed twelve (12) recent doctor appointments for the children, that she had no way of
providing medical insurance to the children, that she was living with her mother who financially supported her, that she would need to share a bedroom with one of the children while living with her mother, and that she made few attempts to have timesharing with the children for months after the Father took custody of them due to his concerns with her cocaine use. The Court ruled that the Father be designated primary custodial parent, and that Crystal could visit the children on alternating weekends (with shared holidays). Crystal was imputed minimum wage income for purposes of child support.
Thereafter, Crystal filed exceptions to the General Magistrate's Report, requesting a reconsideration of the ruling. The Court held a hearing on the motion, and denied relief. The Circuit Court Judge then ratified and
approved the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations. Upon reading the court file, I realized that I had not been given thorough or accurate information regarding the procedural history of the paternity action. The
procedures followed by the Court were standard. Crystal had had her day in Court, and had lost - fair and square.
Prior to my coming onboard in the case, Crystal and her family, in an effort to raise her public image, had told numerous media outlets that the only reason that she did not have custody of her children was that she was not served with court papers, and had lost custody by default. Also, she claimed on national television that Ronald had kidnapped the children, and that his family, through their collusion and "connections" in the courthouse, made sure that Ronald retained custody of the children. This claim was simply untrue, and I was wholly unwilling to corroborate their previous version of the court file. I spent numerous meetings with Crystal and her mother, explaining that I could not attest facts that were untrue to the media, or to anyone else.