I am doing it because she dereves a stable home and the right enviorment as these are the years that shape a childs life and a big part in what kind of person they will turn out to be.
So why didn't you create that stable and right home environment for BEFORE having children, by marrying mom, settling down, and having and raising children together? That's an important question because courts assume that you know how babies are made, and when you decide to sleep with someone, you are telling the court that the way things are, right then, are "good enough" for your child. If you want a higher standard for your children, the only way to ensure it is to create it FIRST and THEN have children. You really don't get to complain or raise the bar later. Parenthood is a "what you see is what your children get" kind of issue. The court's have no interest in what "could" be. It's not the court's job to fulfull your aspirations for your children. That's YOUR job, part of which rests on the decision of whom to have children with, whether to do so within the stability of a healthy marriage or not, and many other factors, which the courts can't and won't address after the fact. It also doesn't turn into a competition of who can do it "better". You've been happy enough for whatever reasons to let mom raise your child. That gives mom the benefit of consistency - and the court now doesn't care what you can do "better" -it only cares about whether or not there is some reason why mom has suddenly become unfit.
stable and loving enviorment but thati soon not to be the case. I know the kind of person she is and on her own w/o her parents under the same roof the child will be in danger. Do I need to wait until something bad happens to do something?????
Realistically - yes you do. Unless you've got something SUBSTANTIAL to show the court that the child could be in imminent danger, and nothing said so far suggests that. Just as police don't arrest people for what they COULD do, courts aren't going to act to shake up the child's existence based on "coulds" or "mights".
I know the kind of person she is
She's the kind of person you chose to be the mother of your child.
It is a clear picture of who has the more stable home and can give her the bet chance of being happy and that along with what you said will most likley be taken into condiseration by the court
No. Again, this isn't a contest. People often misunderstand or misconstrue the concept of "best interest of the child" and its applicability in the family courts. Children aren't entitled to the "best", the best house, the best living situation, the best parents, the best chance of being happy, none of that. They are entitled to be fed, clothed, washed, schooled, sheltered, and generally cared for. If mom is providing those things, that's good enough for the court and enough for mom to retain the status quo. The time to put "best" in place is long gone. The sad reality is that lots of parents make decisions about whom to make children with, and often regret it later. But once one parent is established as the primary caretaker, it takes much more than regrets and wanting more for your children to get change - it takes that caretaker being found unfit - and the standard for parenting is so low you can trip over it.
A much more productive use of your time, energy, money, and love for your children would be spent taking advantage of your time with them - teaching them values, self respect, self worth, self reliance, and self determination - you can play a part in these things - which appear to be in line with your goal of "shaping a chlid's life and what kind of person they turn out to be" - and those things get imparted by ACTIVE parenting on your part, regardless of where the child ends up living.