PER CURIAM
J.H.G. (Father) appeals from the trial courts judgment granting T.L.D. (Maternal Aunt) third-party custody of Fathers six-year-old son, J.A.M. (Child), following the death of Childs mother, B.M. (Mother). Father raises seven points on appeal: 1) the trial court erroneously applied the law by failing to apply the presumption of parental fitness in favor of Father; 2) the trial court erroneously applied the law by basing its ruling on Fathers past conditions; 3) the trial courts finding that Father is unable to provide for the stability, consistency, and routine required by Child is against the weight of the evidence; 4) the trial courts finding that Father is unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be the custodian of Child, and that the welfare of Child requires Maternal Aunt be awarded custody is against the weight of the evidence; 5) the trial courts finding it was in Childs best interest that Maternal Aunt be granted third-party custody is against the weight of the evidence; 6) the trial court erred in admitting Maternal Aunts testimony regarding Fathers medical history and in admitting Fathers medical records; and 7) the trial courts finding that Father is unfit, unsuitable, or unable to be the custodian of Child is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).