A dramatic de novo custody appeal between Candace Collins and Mark Tharp puts years of parental conflict, court orders, alcohol-testing requirements, and the children’s well-being under the microscope.

The hearing focused primarily on whether Mark Tharp should continue being required to submit to PET alcohol testing, but the arguments quickly reopened years of conflict between the parents.

Mark argued that Candace had previously violated court orders and been held in contempt. He told the court that he had previously agreed to an order that kept her out of jail and preserved her relationship with the children, only for her to later voluntarily stop communicating with them and decline additional opportunities for contact.

He also argued that Candace failed to consistently participate in reunification therapy and parenting facilitation. His side presented testimony and evidence concerning statements reportedly made by the children to professionals, including serious allegations involving physical violence against the oldest daughter.

The hearing also touched on another deeply troubling issue: a child reportedly obtained knives or box cutters from the mother's home, and concerns were raised about the child's subsequent self-harm.

But Candace's side presented a very different version of events.

Her argument centered on Mark's own history with alcohol-related concerns. She maintained that the original case involved allegations that he appeared under the influence during therapy, parent facilitation, and a deposition. Her side argued that Mark had repeatedly failed or delayed PET testing and instead relied on shorter-window urine testing.

Candace also argued that Mark and the stepmother had contributed to an environment that negatively affected the children and the oldest daughter's emotional well-being.

The court-appointed Amicus Attorney offered an important perspective, telling the court that the case had gone on far too long and that both parents appeared focused on fighting each other rather than resolving the issues affecting their children. The Amicus also addressed the oldest child's emotional vulnerability and current reluctance to have contact with her mother.

After hearing extensive evidence and arguments from both sides, the judge did not issue a ruling from the bench. Instead, she stated that a written ruling would follow by the end of the day or the next day.

This hearing provides an inside look at de novo family-law appeals, alcohol monitoring, reunification therapy, parental conflict, children's statements to professionals, and the difficult balance courts must consider when deciding what arrangements serve children's best interests.

⚖️ LEGAL CONTEXT: In custody and modification proceedings, courts generally consider the best interests of the children when evaluating conservatorship, possession, access, and related restrictions. In a de novo appeal, the reviewing judge generally considers the matter anew based on the applicable evidence and law. The specific procedures and standards vary by jurisdiction.

This video is created for educational, informational, commentary, and research purposes. In accordance with Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The content presented on this channel may include excerpts of publicly available court proceedings, transcripts, audio recordings, documents, and related materials. All such material is used in a transformative manner to provide commentary, analysis, public education, and legal discussion. This channel does not claim ownership over third-party copyrighted material that may appear in this video.

Any excerpts used are limited in scope and are utilized solely to support critical analysis, factual reporting, and educational commentary. The intent is not to substitute for the original works, but to provide insight, awareness, and discussion regarding legal proceedings and courtroom conduct.

All opinions expressed are those of the content creator and are provided for educational and informational purposes only. This content is not intended as legal advice.