for in about two weeks but it also really involves issues of domestic violence for which two orders of protection will file by my client amanda yost the mother and respondent and as well with regard to a petition for education of indirect civil contempt with regard to refusal by the petitioner jeremy goes to continue and to pay for the health insurance now for my client which was ordered in tempora now with regard to the decision making and with regard to parenting time those factors as the court knows involved is very similar statutory factors to be considered when deciding in the court's ruling the trial court's ruling after hearing evidence was against the manifest and lead of the evidence and the evidence is clear and the opposite conclusion is is clear from what we have is a more traditional family in the act the mother amanda was the primary caregiver for the young child gave up employment to be able to care for young child remove parties father jeremy was is a business person and has his own business of business with his father acquiring rental properties and acquiring various business interests and management for which he's required to go to meetings to chicago down to carbondale  all around various parts of illinois as part of his requirements and part of his job duties as well as daily meetings and daily work in charleston where the parties reside the history of this case in the history of the parties is where the two parties agreed that mother would stay home with the child and she did and cared for the child and nurture the child she's a training as a nurse and was able to not only care for and provide for the medical decisions and medical needs of the child which luckily were not graver were not anything sort of out of the ordinary of the normal issues that one has for an infant child  but also to be able to nurture him take him to daily activities play groups make sure he learns adjustments to learning to share learning to try new things and sort of things that you want one would want every child to be able to do and while she did this on a daily basis taking care of the child in the middle of the night when he would wake up and then caring for him throughout the day while jeremy was at work and at meetings amanda would take him to go explore and go to parks and learn about snakes and bugs and and in fact the child when he would see bugs or snakes ran to his mother to show and that's part of the evidence he would always go when hurt when injured when he'd follow when he wanted to show something new it was the mother that he to now this is a two year old child when the when the custody and the when jeremy filed for divorce so the expressions of the child weren't clear as i want to stay with mommy i want to stay with the n t but the evidence that was demonstrated clearly shows the wishes of the child to be more mother as mother would have been the primary caregiver by agreement of the part of this the child will also had quite an adjustment a strong adjustment to not only to amanda but to her family who lived up in the chicago suburbs and where amanda would take we'll for weeks at a time in the summers to spend time not only with her parents and get to know his maternal grandparents but also to be able to spend time and learn about new issues and new areas and explore new parks and all who read arms and the other activities that were more prevalent in in summers she was able to also make the arrangements for medical care for the child germy while he testified that he always had a flexible schedule he could go all he could changes could whenever he wanted but the evidence showed in fact that the the actions actually speak much louder than words  the child when he was very young but in the twenty four months prior to jeremy filing for for divorce had to get a special surgery done in barnes and amanda schedule that appointment letting jeremy know about that but in fact jeremy despite claiming that he has a flexible schedule didn't appear at that hour at that surgery for his young son the the cour parenting decision making and joint custody then that there should and part of the evidence that i think is is strong in this area is also the fact that not only had the parties agreed that amand make the decisions and that amanda would be the primary caregiver for the parties for the parties child she worked outside the home less than six months when will was one year old so about when he was for six months starting end of december fifteenth to the beginning of june of sixteen and that was part time during that time the journey didn't take on extra responsibilities to care for the child the child was in day care or with bab so it's not that jeremy certainly has suddenly stepped up to the plate and in fact the parties then agreed after those less than six months that trial time that that didn't work and and amanda should quit her job as she did to continue to be the primary care giver not just for will but then johnny's other child from another relationship would be would spend the summer with jeremy and amanda and will and amanda as jeremy's ex wife testified was then the primary caregiver for the child that history of being the primary caregiver and jeremy coming home for perhaps for lunch as the evidence showed does not suggest or evidence that jeremy was a joint caregiver now there was a temporary agreed order that was interred in september of two thousand sixteen by agreement of the parties because jeremy as testified by amanda would not agree to allow her to spend any time with her son would not allow any time until there was an order and so an agreed order was entered providing for equal parenting time and equal decision making or joint decision making what happens then when you are when you know you're going to be going to trial when you know you're under the strict scrutiny of the  jeremy refuses to answer questions when will shows up at amanda's house for an exchange when she has a rash the chose that this child has not been seen has needed a diaper change for several hours and has not been changed germy refuses to answer those questions what happened when did he l and was under doctor's orders to be to not be outside the home generally has taken handbill to a fall festival posted on his facebook page all of these additionally and i think most telling the joint agreement requires parent parenting on a temporary basis for all of these decision one of the decisions and one of the really contentious issues in the trial court was the fact that jeremy hare and amanda had agreed that jeremy sister heather should not spend any time with the child and should not pick up the child from the child's didn't care because of her erratic and i think his jummy fred had phrased it crazy how crazy he was the parties had agreed to this had put heather on a no contact list and had ordered her and had told the preschool that heather under no circumstances was to be able to pick up the child jeremy had told several other individuals who testified in court about how  crazy his sister was and in fact for two years had jeremy had refused to allow heather and her brother tony to spend time with and had kept kept them away but in fact despite this joint parenting requirement what jeremy did is simply a signed statement with the preschool saying oh it's ok for heather now how did we find out it wasn't from any disclosure it wasn't from any statement that jerry testified to by chance on cross examination under one of the last days jeremy admitted that oh yes in fact he had signed this agreement and admitted under cross examination that he hadn't bothered to tell aman ruling has already been set in an idea permanency really scared question yes isn't it true well we put it this way isn't there contrary evidence that was presented to the trial court about jeremy's interaction is charged in jeremy's role in helping raise the trial during those first couple of years or there was never a separation well so if even the first the it's a yes or no answer because the only evidence that was presented that showed the journey had been involved was jeremy claiming oh i got up and i took care of well and i interacted with him and then using it also the case that the preschool teacher testified that she couldn't tell the difference as to who did had will the day before regarding his added to his happiness his i mean that that's certainly true but that doesn't show the interactions i don't believe that shows sort of the interactions of the parties to the preschool teacher who had i think preschool teacher or a few weeks certainly test to testify she couldn't tell if if amanda had had the child before the night before or jeremy had but as far as witnesses and evidence presented the only evidence that jeremy presented with regard to his interactions with the child that is feeding the child caring for the child taking the child out was by heather and tony his sister and brother in law who he later admitted had been precipitated from actually interacting with will or this about two year time period until after i think until after the divorce was filed by county so these are clearly biased individuals and then  the evidence and the actions of germ now in any custody case you're always going to find each parent saying oh i'm i'm sorry parents i'm doing stuff and and family members undoubtedly would say that because if they didn't you wouldn't call them to be these  court chose to ignore the history and the deceased the decision by the parties that amanda was and should be i remove the parties will the primary caregiver the fact that jeremy even in this joint temporary  and the evidence including from people who were not her employees she didn't have any employees but not family members who would testify that it was amanda who was the primary caregiver will out and and do that now this is way with the two petitions for orders of protection he denied those petitions but the abuse and the history of these acts not well certainly no broken bones but is the court knows under the domestic violence act  jeremy put on amanda the refusal to allow her to leave when she was sacked that apart apartment complex the jeremy that jeremy runs and was trying to leave and he blocked her in her wrists him restraining her grabbing her phone those w finally there is the issue of the petition who are in for contempt and that as noted in the well it's not the last issue but another of important issue germany was order on november fifth to continue jeremy apparently knew about this because he purchased health insurance for himself and for will after psystar january first not only did not purchase for amanda despite a court order but he didn't tell me and so she incurred all of these bills that would testify to but the court denying that and somehow claiming that there were not bills for uncovered care despite the fact that amanda had presented and that was the court the court should have found that found jeremy an indirect civil contempt in order for him to pay all of those uncovered medical bills for which he incurred bills after starting january first council question yes assuming nonpayment of the insurance that were presented i think you mom over a thousand dollars bill and i don't know that i can point to that right now but i know in the record there was the evidence of  december and then she didn't find out until january about the the losses that she had and so there were and the court we would ask that on remand that the court find that he was in contempt and should be ordered to pay those bills as in order him to pay those bills the other issue and that's what it goes to that is we have severe pretty strong differences in economic circumstances between the park's amanda first having given up her employment to be able to be the primary caregiver the parties has done did not have any income cept for sale in a few dollars she did this selling internet jewelry that sort of thing but only a matter of a few dollars i think not even enough to make anything on the tax the tax forms and then jeremy who had a business with his father which was a non marital asset of his and income from that as well as that's were distributed well he was jeremy was allocated the debts there was a twenty two million dollar abbey first purchase and so what the court do this is order jeremy to pay those but in dividing these assets a greater portion of the assets and funds should have been allocated to amanda given the stark difference in the economic circumstances and ability to earn income in the future of the two parties  redistribution of the assets to allow for a greater distribution as opposed to fifty fifty of the assets that the court that since the child had been born he was two and a half years old the time the divorce was filed mr gross worked from home began his work day around four am each morning stopped working for the morning when the child would arise take care of the child until mrs yost a rose for the day and then would resume working or she cared for the child had lunch with his family every single day would work again while the child napped and then would be done working for the day when the child arose from his nap around three pm to four pm on a daily basis th meetings that he had to testify that those but that was not past majority of his working responsibilities further it is very important to note on two of the issues one which being made and some the second of which being parenting time and decision making that up until the summer routine who's picking up and what time the parties equally divided the medical decisions it was pointed out in testimony that the original testimony of mrs yates was not correct and mr gibbs said that tended almost all of the medical appointments for the minor child prior to agree with that you were a period of time when they weren't interacting with one another i do agree with that sir there was a very short period of time after the child was one year and was there an assessment by both parents or by your client at least changed yes from point yes or no prior to even filing for divorce as heather can act as tess to testify to the sister of my client she testified that earlier even in two thousand and seventeen prior to the filings of any of the orders of protection of the party ahead reconciled whatever had a family those years prior they had allowed the child together to be around had their on it together basis on a family type of settings there was testimony from tony as well which is heather's husband that the parties had enjoyed holidays at each other's homes so each other numerous times per week the mystery guest only continued after the party separated he continued to see them on a regular basis when he had parenting time with his son do you agree that  temporary great order there wasn't an obligation for them to talk about anybody picking up a minor child who they were both allowed and their greed temporary order to send whomever to the preschool to pick up the minor child there also if you look at the pleadings history in this case are not one of the pleadings filed by mrs yos asks for the court to put strict who's allowed to be around a minor child during their respective periods parenting time that if she didn't come out until the final trial we operated under a temporary order she had the opportunity  protection neither of which side to this alleged danger that this sister in law pose this minor child in regards your honor then to the parenting time that is supported by the evidence supported by mr gibbs work schedule is supported by what the family operated under the nights leading up to or the months leading up to the final separation  there is case law that supports this as well in regards to just sit in making b and hope joint and re tape all over b which is the second district two thousand and sixteen case and that case as well the child was born out of wedlock the child was very young at that time the parties although each requested sole decision making the trial court alternately found that the parties that the totality of evidence was actually that they cooperated on most of the major issues in regards to the minor child and have been able to work out parenting time scenarios that didn't coordinate with the previous court order without having to reconvene back to court that's exactly what mr and mrs both testified to they were tested there was testimony that both of them had needed a change here and there in regards to parenting time that they were to accommodate in fact there was no police involvement in the time the parties separated after mrs yost left the marital home through the time of trial there was no petitions for contempt other than that of the medical insurance allegation the parties overall were cooperating were co parenting time they live in the same community the child was able to keep his same school playmates family connections and all and medical providers all while while  operating under the same agreed agreed temporary order the parties made an agreement at the very end of september less than one month after filing for divorce that they would share equal time and that they would have joint decision making that it is not supported by  the arguments of mrs yost's and that it wasn't working prior and therefore isn't working now in regards to parenting time the case that is supported in my press which is the third district two thousand and fifteen case and that case there is very similar facts of what we have issued here father testified he had and i flexible schedule he was a barber in the prison system he said he always had that flexibility mother testified for the last two years she'd been a stay at home mom after he left her layoff the court ultimately decided in that case that the party should have equal parenting time as well in science in the same factors that are relevant in the  of the child was able to maintain these pillars of support that is provided especially at such a tender age of age three years old almost for we do not believe that the evidence that the trial court of the session of the trial court can be found be against the manifest we have the evidence on either of the two for coming and shoes in regards to the petition for an order of protection as counsel stated in order for this court to overrule the denial of both of those petitions for an order honorable judge mitch scheck mitchell scheck was ultimately substituted off of the instant case by filing of mrs yes after he denied both petitions for contempt and then the case was assigned to judge lane who ultimately made the ruling in the trial court the on september fourteenth two thousand and seventeen mrs yost appeared which was six days after any alleged abuse that happened to mrs yost's when actually the evidence that was presented which was supported by the testimony  of the officer that had appeared on september thirteenth that he had spoken to the alleged witness at the incident on september seventeenth that he saw no physical contact between mr and mrs yost's the officer said that on september thirteenth when she appeared unannounced marital home after being gone a few days prior to that the parties interact cordially there was no yelling there was no hostility there was no physical aggression and the other witness that testified was patrick byrd who is a mutual friend of both parties and he also stated the same thing renewed that policy on january one useable child thing and seventeen days so when we are presumably divorced this is what's his testimony then i wouldn't have that obligation mark so i can't provide her medical insurance further in regards to the and he took no front of action to cancel it and he thought that she and that we if they were going into the trial further in regards to this alleged petition for contempt as judge appoints cited to you and his ruling he said there was not proved any damages the statements  statements were attached to her financial affidavit but have you look at those statements a lot of them are from september october november and december of two thousand and seventeen when she had health insurance coverage further if you take a look at those alleged losses a lot of them are from no call those factors and his decision to deny maintenance cannot be found to be any use of a scratch and and this case as previously alluded to this is yost has a nursing degree she utilized that nursing degree up until two thousand and sixteen she was employed befor yost during their marriage work in the same the same job as they did when they got married just as when mrs yates did she work after the child was born and only in the summer of two thousand and sixteen did she become voluntarily unemployed further the court has to consider where the parties leave this marriage and as you can review from judge points ruling that amanda was awarded over one hundred sixty nine thousand dollars as a part of her property distribution she was  about fifty three thousand dollars in debt all of which she'll be able to presumably pay off with the distribution it was a sham payment that mr gibbs is required to pay her mr ghost on the other hand was left with a vast majority of the debt  discretion and the court's ruling is thorough he provides both of them with a person personal property as well as the financials an in summary unless the court has further questions for me we would ask that you hold the ruling of the trial court on all the issues that are present at this morning on appeal first with regard to the court's questions on the petition for contempt for the non renewal of the health insurance this suggestion of the fact that jeremy follow the court's orders by not renewing amand health insurance but by complying with the court's order that he maintain wills health insurance i'm not sure what language there must be some i can't i can't fathom it i can't fathom an understanding of it as noted in exhibit a of the to the petition for contempt which was included in the separate appendix of the appellant amanda tex jeremy on friday july fifth and she testified to this too as well and in those proceedings hey jeremy could add me back on the health insurance the agreement was that you would keep me on it for the time being his response on sunday january seventh two days later was hey i'll drop off will to you at four he was he never to text messages that amanda asks about the health insurance about what's going on about any of those issues and the suggestion by counsel that first he had no obligation to continue health insurance is bill why and by the court's order which counsel admits to from november fifth that he was to continue to provide health insurance for his wife and for his child that he provides it for his trial if you follow that order but that he refused to file not only refused insurance so to suggest oh well amanda knew that there was that that there wasn't going to be any health insurance after that there's no evidence of that at all the june twenty sixth two thousand letter two thousand something letter says to jeremy our yost and it provides that notice which is the ongoing responsibility of petitioner as to insurance for his ex the ongoing once the permanent order was entered would be to terminate because the temporary orders are terminated once a permanent order is entered ok but then do you agree or disagree with mr bayne statement that some of the bills that were attached as part of were incurred in september october or are you certain there were other wasn't sure i agree that there were bills and why those weren't paid by insurance i don't know and maybe they had to be resubmitted but i appreciate his fame admitting that it was just some not all of the bills that were attached and all were all what were the bills that that were accumulated that they were incurred after january first i'm sorry i don't have those on hand to be able to show the court but i believe the evidence showed and that ms testified to incurring additional expenses that should have been covered by insurance which is how she found out that there was no insurance it was i'd like to address a couple other issues in just  dance with regard to too old that there was no filing that amanda never filed in or a petition asking that heather be not be allowed to pick up the child who that's because the parties had already agreed to this and so it was to continue it had already been a note in the school so there need not be a petition to say can this continue when the parties are ordered to jointly participate a suggestion then that amanda was under some obligation a final motion or petition to say hey i want to continue the agreement of the parties that heather not be able to pick up the child doesn't make any sense under the agreed joint under the joint temporary going parenting order additionally with regards to this violence issue and the suggestion that perhaps this was just really a shangri la relationship and everyone was really just hugs and kisses after amanda left and wouldn't stay the night after jeremy attacked her at the apartment complex where she was helping out to work and where he kept her and when she returned without the child having left her son their son up in chicago with her parents in front of the police officer mr hale she warned jeremy she told jeremy i told you if you put your hands on me again i would be jeremy's response science there was no denial that night that he had that he had not that he hadn't put his hands on her anything like that it was intel after he has some time to think about