side as to whether the jurisdictional issue that was raised by consul for the actually threw a motion to dismiss after i had filed my first brief whether that is still an issue and in your arms mind and the reason i'm raising the question the moment is because the apple is brief first there for his first argument is again the same recital of the law in the argument that i believe this court previously rejected in denied in a motion to dismiss therefore i did not file a required brief to address that issue because i filed a thirteen page objection to his motion to dismiss before we got here this court made a ruling it did not have this motion to dismiss i interpreted that as a substantive ruling that this court agreed that it had jurisdiction to but if you do i mean obviously it's your choice not mine i have a thirteen page brief before this court in my object into the apple his motion to dismiss and i will consider it thank you very much i just want to clarify that if you and  raised begin with the issue of the state bill of the of the environment that the child has lived in up to the date of the court's ruling we believe the evidence was absolutely solid that so last broder was the primary caregiver and issue which this corps and other illinois courts have looked out for the first eighteen months of the child's birth she's breastfeeding the kid she's with the kid with with diabetes in all of these instances it's mom who takes the kid to the doctor provides medical care in the case of diabetes the test knowing the evidence is if she takes into dr sherman  family physician on one day and takes going to your hospital on the diabetes the very end has been admitted the very next day so we believe with respect to this first issue we've raised that the court is really really over looked through the primary care caregiver was and the state bill of the of the environment and his part of our argument and on that issue i guess it's a subject you are or two sides of the same coin naturally do we point out the sta at the time he hasn't been able to get a job for he couldn't he has a bachelor's degrees from northern illinois university he couldn't get a job in the quad cities five relation four hundred thousand and your honour's are familiar with it you know the businesses in the industry that we have there so he can't get a job in the quad cities with a bachelor's degree so he has to move also fell in line by chicago with his parents he then gets into a situation and the evidence says that he makes forty eight makes two hundred dollars a month in his job as a graphic designer illustrator or whatever so he's living under the poverty level but there's also some testimony received fourteen hundred dollars a month from his grandfather for looking after the house that he was living in which was is the grandfather's house so his income is either two hundred dollars a month or four urse fifteen hundred dollars a month depending  disputed michael diva couldn't support himself let alone donovan i'm two hundred dollars you can figure out what the fourteen hundred dollars is if you if it's important to the court basically between these two individuals the far more stable person at the time the trial is going on in terms of state will do the child in relationship to the top child is celeste broke the second issue we raised that we believe is determining who the custodial parent is going to be it prohibits the court from considering evidence of conduct i think the rule would have been better written and said this doc but it's  proposed facility old parent if it doesn't happen a fact on the child or the parenting relationship of the parent to the child that gets assumed that rule has been applied in a lot of cases in which the of alcohol or drug abuse through our illinois that rule and drugs and alcohol seem to come up in this case the evidence we believe was clear so last broder as a teenager had a problem with drugs there's no dispute about that youthful indiscretion i guess i'll say and but she testifies that by the fact she's in her at the latest in her early twenty's twenty twenty one whatever she was thirty four at the time of the trial so she testifies that by thirteen years before the trial she's claiming she quit using drugs she realized what her problem drugs were her and she also had an issue a mental health issue with cutting herself and she raises this issue in the file and testifies that as a very very young girl after grandmother died she started this practice and actually cut herself  inflicted wound five or six times she then gets treatment for that and back and we maintain that hasn't been an issue michael give us that these are one time in two thousand and seven which would be five years before the and abuse of alcohol he makes them very very significant statements there he uses the word longstanding he calls he says that celeste broder suffers from a longstanding mental problems and quote from longstanding history of drug abuse and addiction that is not the evidence in the seven hundred three pages of the record she had a drug abuse issue which she admits to thirteen years before the trial there is zero evidence nothing that indicates that her abuse of drugs thirty years ago has any connection to her parenting skills beginning eight years later when a continuous something whatever along whatever you're talking about is longstanding but it clearly i think you can it clearly suggest that it's an ongoing problem the evidence here in this case is just the opposite and then the judge the judge goes from there to a statement i don't think i've ever seen before in thirty nine years of practicing law where the judge says that speculation there isn't a word by any of the doctors who testified in this case or anybody else that would support the argument that it is arguably probable that there's going to be a relapse i have no idea where judgeship was came up with that i think it's entirely proper improper for a judge to engage what has to be total speculation about and have a crystal ball view of what's going to happen i him part of his opinion and that forms the basis of his decision he says that my client's less broder has perception problems another phrase i've never heard in thirty nine years in litigation masturbating to gay pornography that might michael and gauges and excessive compulsive behavior by folding blank sheets of paper and putting volumes of them down the basement that he had to take out sides signed by their counsel negotiated initialed on each page and it took care of the issues of joint custody allocation of parenting time  i'm making a ruling in my capacity as a trial judge that the us august no this of appeal was premature because there was still something left hanging before the court furthermore the parties request initial decision not to dismiss this appeal wanting to hear further from my concession in the alternative in this in this first argument is that either the appeal should be dismissed as moved  r or just denied on the basis that there is no case in controversy now moving on to the  decisions of the judge to award the joint custody of the child to the parties it was a correct one and the decision to award primary residential custody to my  after they separated and april of two thousand and ten they had a nine month agreement which was for both parties to share custody one week on one week off and that worked for a while when it stopped working it was because mr broder insisted that my client was not going to see the child except on her terms and under her supervision she was the one in possession of the child the stability of the child was that the fifty fifty parenting time range meant which was fine to be alright until such time as a child was going to go to preschool or or or school was working out only after my client went in on an emergency motions restore the status quo there's an indication evidence the parties prior to trial entered into a stipulation in that stipulation indicated that the mother was making two thousand working was working on godly hours he was doing so to support the family wants to take notice of the fact that during the time that my client was unemployed it was a time when this economy had plunged into a very deep recession was not all that easy for folks to find employment my my client did his level best to maintain the financial stability of five of the family after he was laid off by his employer who worked for them part time as an independent and the custody of earlier dr hutchinson had the occasion to observe the parties with the child and he found that my client had a more appropriate way of dealing with and disciplining the minor had a diagnosis admitted diagnosis of bipolar disorder she had a diagnosis of depression her physician who testified on her own to have testified not that she should not be taking medication for bipolar disorder but rather that this was the type of a medication that he as a general practitioner would not prescribe he had referred her to the robert young clinic for depression and to that referral a doctor a psychiatrist there have prescribed for a variety of plethora of anti depressant medications even though she should have been taking medication and even though she should have been in therapy she unilaterally decided to not continue with either therapy or medication that's a that's a free decision that she can make but stated opinion a relapse would be probable or improbable that that's a matter of a few shading however with respect to the drug issue there was denied that she had smoked any marijuana since the time that the child was pregnant the testimony by my client was that she continued to smoke and that she admitted to him that she was fired from her job because she was caught by one of her art curators smoking marijuana while on a job related trip and miss miss broder candidly admitted upon cross examination that in gal standards on reviewing evidence are correct the fact is that in this case not only was it's not it's not a judgment call the this should be made by this court as to whether this  there was sufficient substantial and good evidence supporting the fact that my client should have residential custody that was good and substantial evidence that the parties would be able to co parent this is miss broader and has not been denied anything she is participating in joint custody of the child the more appropriate the more mature the more stable and more able parent to be able to see to it that this child has a good decent future is mr given in custody was in physical residential custody was appropriate we decided you have any questions your honor so i don't believe we do  thank you very much thank you sir extremely clear in the guidance that it provides to the practicing bar in the lower courts it says if a trial court judge creates confusion by a series of multiple orders which is obviously likely t very directly says in rejecting the state of illinois argument on this point if you have any confusion if a court creates any confusion by multiple orders the party who is confused always as a remedy it then instructs us as members of the practicing bar to file multiple notices of and it exactly what we did after judge can't risk created confusion by a says that any of that there is a premature appeal filed by a practicing lawyer now on it's no longer going to be considered premature the rule says that that notice of feel whatever good it was filed in and said this i didn't file a motion for any fact or sanctions or anything like that but the supreme court addressed this exact issue in two thousand and seven and i think it's absolutely improper for this issue to be raised now so on those case no medical person who said that my client should be taking medication for any mental condition at the time of the trial counsel is right that there were prior recommendations that should be done dr but you've got to look at that history this case covers ten eleven years if you want to get into drugs and mental health and or fourteen years if you want to get into the back there is no evidence at all it says that welder yes there was a stipulation that his client mr giving had an income of seventeen hundred dollars but the evidence is i'm refuted in the record it says the seven hundred dollars is actually sixteen  dollars two hundred of which he terms by being a designer and illustrator and a cartoonist two hundred dollars a month is what you really are and his grandfather gave him fourteen hundred dollars and that's how we stipulate a month and