Support research to use in trial

[win5Low]

A State Appeals Court has reversed in part and remanded the Curcuit Court Judge's decision, meaning another trial. They ruled that the Circuit Court Judge's custody decision was a palpable abuse of discretion. The Appeals Court claimed that "the Judge's factual finding that no established custodial environment existed, is against the great weight of the evidence".
The three judge panel agreed that the trial court commited a clear legal error when it relied on information that was not part of the record. This refers to the Judge, in his post-trial written opinion, citing local public health publications that recommend a stable environment for young children and that this cannot be attained by joint custody and the frequent changes involved with such a situation.
The three judge panel stated that it prevented the defendant (me) from rebutting or otherwise challenging the studies and the courts belief that they were accurate. My question is:
1.) Do you know of any reputable studies that would refute or run contrary to the local public health department's stance that the Judge relied upon, but was not part of the record?

I hope this makes sense.

[socrateaser]

Yes, you are gonna get a new trial and your opponent will want to introduce into evidence the supporting public health dept study.

In order to do this, an expert will be required to testify to the scientific value of the study. You will be allowed to produce your own expert to rebut the other side's expert.

The judge cannot simply take judical notice of the study because its findings are highly arguable. Judical notice is appropriate for facts that are well established and easily ascertainable, like the distance between cities, or the height of a highway overpass.

If no expert is produced, then you can object to the evidence as hearsay, and completely without foundation as to its scientific value.

Personally, I would file a motion requesting that the judge voluntarily recuse him/herself, on grounds that the judge's original ruling and the rebuke from the appellate court casts reasonable doubt on the judge's ability to be fair on the issue of joint custody -- in fact the judge has stated on the record that he/she doesn't believe in joint custody, and therefore has shown actual bias that goes against you.

May as well try to get another judge, while you have the chance.

[win5Low]

A thousand thank yous benevolent one!
 The new trial is indeed going to be in front of a new Judge, who, I'm told by my attorney, has a more contemporary view of custody matters.