if you look at the judge's opinion on page ninety the judge says the court never heard her and my client had been with this child raise this child for a little over four years by the time the child was taken away the child wasn't necessarily taken away from my client but from the and you have the factors in the grandparent the station act and it talks about whether you're a caregiver for for twelve months whether your primary care for six months or whether the child lives with you for six months if you go through each one of the factors that are attached to them at the end of the grantor of this nation and every one of those factors i grandmother and the great grandma and there's also testimony about one of the trials of the civil half so when you have that nurturing relationship that goes on for more than four years and you break  a ship that is the type of farm that is in vision in the green room is patient and that the court or that that the law is trying to avoid and so she talks about the child having actual harm not able to form bonds and relationships in and this being a situation where ok you're your last relationship with your mom in these other two people stepped in your your great grandmother your grandmother and then you can lose that relationship she says she began to know her biological father responded to this case i think a little over two years from when she was born in november of zero five overnight visitation took place in the beach with the with the father in november of zero six so we have over three years goes by n or allowing the child to see the graham mother the great grandmother was not occurring as a matter of fact on testimony from the father was that it took almost two years for the child to become grandmother or was projecting it's a normal child well i would submit your honour's that that is the type of harm in the type of suffering that a child should not have to go through did not happen to go through and  is continuing this act is trying to prevent there being nothing there's no testimony no fact in this case that points to the grandparents not being able to grandmother in the great going testifies that mckayla risks having problems maintaining relationships are being able to have stable relationships that are secure and to be able to maintain i think if you look at the judge preserve this side of the family it would be harmful for this side not to be able to establish a relationship because then one half of your bio caught up gets and the on ice supreme court said no we're not going to tell you there's no reason to confuse the child that's the son geos what rate should be given to the field not nearly as much as the next guy because the expert has the arm training and then minutes that the child on wants to see the grandmother and want to see the siblings sheep it's our contention that she was happy and healthy as well today because of the relationship between the child and the grandparents and grandmother there's no one that saying that the grandmothers not doing this in good faith somehow was doing it for the right reasons i would say that the the dad probably he's like there's nothing in the law that says judge can't hear something and him when he's on the did you ask for something less you know i don't want to make representations i don't even know if the pleading said whatever this patient would get i don't know and i think i guess yes i mean we are very clear is our number one requesters overnight visitation but look judge if you think that's too much too quick could we just take submit that i think that yes i don't i don't know any legal principle that says if you ask for overnight visitation and you don't get it that's that's all you're entitled to yeah first of all we're supposed to look at this and say you know no visitation to the extent that the thing on the table in the pleadings yes was overnight and extended in week long in the summers and those kinds of things but i don't believe that judge fitzgerald in his opinion regulated his not denial by the element of this taishan all that's one of the statutory factors i would like to point out to the court perhaps a different path in the statute six zero seven eight three we talk about  a no part of this statute shall apply to a child whose interests are in a pending section two thirteen juvenile court act or to adopt an unrelated child meaning an unrelated child like two other of the siblings of the cables to other siblings were adopted out to unrelated parties so obviously tanya is not in here talking about visitation with with those two children were adopted out and really the statute also goes on though to show or to say that there's two prongs to the test and i'm reasonable denial visitation and at least one of the following and then and then we get into mr over the list and i'd read that the list is compelling in this case but i also point out that as a supplement to the record there is a juvenile order that was part of the juvenile case in peoria and that was a test as a supplement to the record by motion by our motion now i want to explain in a forthright way to the court what was anticipated because i was there and that was the anticipation that we were in the juvenile court a petition was on file in the juvenile court and judge purim in peoria said wait a minute you're in the wrong you're in the wrong court room until we get to the juvenile case or until we get to the family  we're not going to have any contact with anyone that was in fact the order of the court that my client was operated through then the family case the family case was transferred to mclean county because an adoption related adoption was filed and the related option was awarded june twenty first two thousand  now when i go through the statute here what i'm thinking is an easy decision is that there was not unreasonable visitation by dad because of the court order saying no contact by that but but i but i but i still think that court order even though it was not specific that these people are bad people or they're not good that that was not the the issue is least from the time of the juvenile order until the filing in the family case of the petition for visitation i quite was fearful of the department coming in and saying hey wait a minute you let these people see that kid we were supposed to do that and those kinds of issues that i know you  mclean county case and it's been my experience and i'm sure yours also that guardian ad litum typically are not making the big bucks and to the extent that they are truly looking out for the benefit of their client i th ink that's relevant in the sense that when the guardian ad litum attempted to contact the petitioners and you'll find that a couple places in the  as an adversary great grandmother shut the door and said your perspective well if we're going to empower somebody here with your work i would hope that the court order will reflect idea that he was not given the respect where the up the possibility there was another confrontation in his office by tonya allen the confrontation on in the record is it  thirty six and the g a o else persion of this confrontation is far different in his office and in fact his version is he had kicked out the sister to the grandm where the judge gets his information this is really an ad litum spend it least seven hours with child to that extent i think that's why i would how would you sum up what the problem is here with this why why is this i think we have the element of an adoption that is adoptive mother having feelings about getting her back her children her child together and progressing with that i think we have had least a difficultly with the adoptive mckayla our child here is continuing to visit with the un related adoptive to chill those visits are being done in a once a month fashion as the child gets older five's intend to reconnect with these people i'm sure you hear that all the time also but i do say to you that the element of reconnecting to the family is important to my clients it is important what's the problem with the quantity the conditions of visitation and frankly the elements of the grandmother then hess too has a no other child of mom's so to offer that pull that off the table because the guardian ad litum i think perceived the difficulties that we were having with not only planning but the lack of respect in the show to the guardian ad li where was the position of the petition is before the court this is what we want to hear that is correct  so to speak in all or nothing kind of were there and again it gets back to the statute again now i'm back with mr goldberg in the sense that they need to prove harm to the child that's what the law says and they haven't proven are so said i don't believe that's in the that that is within the law again i'm not disrespecting your statement i'm saying that the harm that's required to be shown has not been showing soon we affirmed is the are they forever precluded is the child ages it is the intent of the adoptive mother and natural father to incorporate these this family what is what is there to have the once a month two hours at mcdonald's or or something along those lines some incremental involvement of no i don't think so and that's and that's and that's that's part of the difficulty in the sense that as child gets older you know i guess i'm trying to think conceptually where you end up but i don't think you end up with overnight in the weeks the that's in the record the tickler the good the adopted mother indicated that this was not the time she was more focused on this not being the time not that so much addressing the quantity but what was the reason for the purity and juvenile court to enter an order who had been in contact between his books clients and the child of his that all about  i respectfully try to answer that because i think it was because they were unruly a bad level and it was difficult for the judge to step away from the case record a discussion about that attempted to relay the same issues the same issue that judge pearl did not say these are bad people but he did say until you get litigated in the case i'm not going to have this be a sideshow in the juvenile case enjoy they have the juvenile cases i call them linked together so there were there were like three upon children and he was attempting to get us kicked out the door when he when he found that after father was a fit parent he was attempting to to modify grandparent order can be made earlier than two years after the date was filed and there is no substantial change in circumstance language that i see there so again i  clearly deserved the grandparents by no formal order were essentially we say grandparents i mean very first actually the parents for porn have here because of something that the daughter did and parent it's not right when they shouldn't have done it and it's clearly being counted against them in the child is also suffering because of it hopefully we can move past that and with the proper order in the proper conditions on  you go through the factors in the statute every single one of them goes toward you know there was i was involved in a very pretty especially here less than a month ago on the other side  on to be told what this statute means and that it should apply in this case thank you ted thank you