barbara sure and for the may please the court opposing counsel i represent the petitioner appellant kristen hall today i'm asking you for several things most importantly i'm asking you to reverse the decision of the trial court of judge korea which change primary custody of dixie the party's minor child from her mother my client kristen to her father pat and also asking that you reverse the provision of the parenting plan awarding pat sole decision making at one prior to two thousand and sixteen when judge correa rendered his decision my client kristen and not only made all decisions for this minor child but had really done a good job everybody agreed t judge the g a o l both of the parties and all the witnesses that testified on behalf of kristen indicated that dixie is a delightful happy well adjusted child and that's because my client had done such a good job with her and there was no reason for a change if you look at the ruling of judge corey out it just doesn't make sense there's no evidence to support it this was a modification it was a modification under the two thousand tell you why it's a modification to begin with when the parties were in court in september of thirteen they read an agreement into the record which indicated that what was then known as custody now would be called parenting time was going to be with my client that dixie would predominantly reside with kristen in fact not that it was needed when they read the agreement to the record in september of thirteen but the parties agreed on the record that kristen at that point in time would be moving from the decatur area to edwards from madison county illinois which is roughly an hour and forty five minutes to two hours away from decatur all of this was read into the record additionally and probably most importantly although no written agreement was entered memorializing and i did not try this case i am the appellate court attorney so i don't know why that wasn't done i do know that the parties observed what we now call the parenting time or the schedule into the summer of sixteen when judge corey out changed it i also know that i'm sorry i thought they packaged together just as they did for a short period of time they did but the agreement that they put in the record in september of two thousand thirteen was that kristen would have the majority of parenting time that pat would have i believe it was wednesday to sunday that she was moving to i can recall those that were still are going carbon but at the station without a difference she did move back in with him for a period of time but that agreement was read into the record additionally and probably most importantly as far as whether to trim and whether or not this is a modification or an initial determination of who should live with most importantly a child support order was centered requiring pat to pay child support kristen we don't do child support orders in less there is an award of parenting time or custody or visitation and that's what was done and pat paid that child support there was an order and under the parent it acted indicates that absent a specific ruling saying one parent has primary custody or one parent has petitioned that a child support order with one presumes what was then known as custody or primary parenting time with the other pat makes a great deal of the fact that there was never a parentage order entered where there was never a parentage order entered then i guess my question is how could judge choreo even award him any sort of custody or parenting time another question that i have had throughout i mean when i began looking at this case was how is it that judge korea awarded him any sort of parenting time which would allow him to move dixie from madison county illinois to decatur which with a two hour ride i think we can all agree it's more than fifty miles away under the new relocation statute which would have been in fact in the summer of sixteen he never filed a petition for relocation at that point time anything more than fifty miles he would had to have leave of court to move her so back to your question as to why this is the modification there was an order that was written that was read into the record it was not memorialized they both had attorneys i have no idea why somebody didn't prepare an order but they observed that agreement for a while until the summer i guess it was early fall part of me of two thousand and fifteen pat initially filed a petition to determine i guess parent filed it shortly before the changes to the i am d m a kristen filed a motion to dismiss indicating we're at the modification stage and he himself filed a petition for modification and acknowledgement by himself and counsel that at this point in time when this case was brought up on your honor and i again i figured that somebody would ask me about that i don't agree with that i think that can be interpreted two ways there in the middle of trial judge choreo gave conflicting statements throughout as to whether or not this with the modification or not he had the pleadings before him that indicated it was a petition for modification i think that the judge's comment was we're looking at this as if it's an award and i don't know that that was a tacit agreement and even if it was even if christians trial attorney made a mistake isn't it the job of the judge to be the gatekeeper in to make sure that the proper statute is followed in the proper standard is being applied i mean i guess my question is if her attorney or trial attorney worst case scenario let's say he agreed with the judge on this and it's unclear to me from some of the judges comp the trapped parts comments throughout this whether or not they were viewing this as an initial determination of best interest or a modification where you have to prove  conference of the evidence of substantial change and then you move on to whether or not those changes indicate that a change and i knew called the schedule just because it's it's easier to call to schedule is necessary to serve dixie's best interest i believe that judge conflicting comments throughout but even let's just say let's just say kristen's attorney was wrong by agreeing with him does that mean that it's right for this judge to view this as an initial proceeding as opposed to a modification it's clearly a modification they did in this pattern that they read into the record promised three years at the time of trial kristen primarily raise this child she made decisions for her she was the one who stayed home with this child when this child was sacked she was the primary caretaker of this child there was uncontroverted evidence it's also notable to me that a parent pat the father who's finally a petition for modification and part of the basis of this petition for modification is that kristin with two hours away she didn't have family there she didn't have a support system we've got these wonderful schools in decatur everything is better for her in decatur my family's here my fiance now wife is here it's notable to me and i've been doing this for twenty eight years i have never ever tried a modification not to mention an initial custody case with the only class person i call as a witness is my own client he has all these great support system decatur he has his fiance there who herself is an attorney who is there for the whole trial yet he doesn't call any of them as a witness the opening witnesses and there's uncontroverted testimony were kristen and her family and her former worker from a coworker pardon me he does with the witnesses everybody testified that this child is doing great that kristen's done everything there was nothing indicating that there was any substantial change in circumstances the things that were somewhat cited and definitely pointed out by pat in his brief  kristen move what kristen was given permission to move she may have been living there at the time that this court entered its order or they read the agreement the record is that temper of thirteen and come back for a while and moved again but certainly we're not going to be punishing parents for a valid themselves with the ability to move in a court order allows that and i hope we're not going to set a precedent where we're punishing young parents who are early on in their career when this case started in thirteen kristen was in school she subsequently graduated it's not unusual early on in a career to maybe move around a little bit for a job that's what she did when she moved she was living in st louis at the time of the september thirteenth agreement she came back to decatur in hopes of working things out and if he went back to the st louis area for a job there were problems with that shaab the g a o and pat tried to make a look at the if she did something clandestine or unethical and that's why she was fired for her own coworker testified as to what really happened there had to do with where they got i guess the ping from your cell phone when you're doing a check and even if she lied and was an ethical at that job there was no evidence that that had any harmful effect on dixie and what we need to look at is if some substantial change had some negative effect such t the best interests are served by chip by changing who she primarily was living with the other change they pointed out is that this would be what if we had a temporary custody  would be treating it as a modification would we be treating it as an initial determination of permanent custody that's a good question i mean i mean if you let let go through good question you forward let's let's go back order i'm not suggesting that shot to be punished for that because it was bad form i'm suggesting that it really does have an effect regarding how you look at what happened i don't know that i necessarily agree with time usually i put something in there to be effective it will not prejudice either party or i don't hear it but we all know as prep i mean i'm assuming all three sure that for you the fact is law ok i'm just presuming that by all you've done enough of there that you understand that even though we put that in there the reality is when you have a lag of time and in this case it was two years from the time of the september thirteenth agreement to the filing and basically three years give or take a month until a decision when you have that time like the reality is it doesn't change the reality of dixie's life dixie has been living with kristin that whole time christian's been making the decisions uncontroverted testimony that pat did very little he did nothing about school his only interest in her school daycare preschool whatever you prefer to call it but she was that never was to come shortly before trial and pashto if you dig up you know negative about my client but nothing proactive on his part to be involved with this child's life my client ma all the decisions for this child she did everything and this child is doing great so why are we changing it's even if it was an initial determination to back to your question about temporary custody he even if there was temporary isn't there a rule in illinois that custody determinations are to be eight within eighteen months of bringing the initial pleadings that would bring the issue to a head so the fact that this case even if you view what happened in september thirteenth as temporary i don't know that we can say that a temporary order was it by bringing it back to court i don't disagree with you i mean it's if it was my firm handling it it would have been back that we would have an order to whoever was signing it within thirty days but the the other thing is that under the parentage act the child support order up watching pap presumes primary parenting custody whatever we're calling it in kristin and that's just constant if i mean there's no way to get around this the other side site is that i remember bill two seventy two and some case laws on that but it it's not it doesn't prove the point it just it doesn't i mean this was a final order and they observed it i guess my question is if pat didn't think that that was a final order why did he if he didn't think that person had custody why did he observe this for so long why did he let her move back to edwardsville without putting up a fight and doing something to stop her th like to go well let's talk about the g a o again i did not try this case i look at this again just like i look at the lack of witnesses for past and the fact that his fiance now wife who would have been you know clearly if custody was changed parenting time was changed this woman is going to be you know a parent in the household where this child lives and actually have more time with her than her own mother my client so let's look at the g a o report ok so the g a o supposed to be the eyes and ears of the court i have to tell you i've never seen such a core investigation this is a case where this child had been living primarily with her mother for her entire life at the time the g a o was suggests she does nothing to look at the school or the community were christian lives not even photos i mean i get that perhaps she didn't want to do a four hour round trip but money was never an issue for this g l in fact her sloppiness was so evident in the fact that she even built my client for one entry and instead of one hundred fifty an hour fifteen hundred dollars an hour so we're talking a child's entire life but definitely three years time that the litigation has handed time very quiet and she spends four point two five hours talking to people at seventy percent of her time was spent talking to pat his fiance now wife alyssa collie and my client's former boyfriend who does not sound like the most stand up guy now let's look at what she says about him in his report he's clearly angry at kristen he's the spurned boyfriend this is also a guy whose judgment as far as parenting is so poor that while his wife who is married to is dying he moves kristen and her her daughter dixie into his home yet she relies on him and his negative comments about her and what happened at her other job so i don't throw court discounted most of that from what they may soon i mean but they review her recommendations nothing in the g a o this recommendation talks about what's in dixie's best interest both the judge and the g a o and it seemed to somewhat be the theme of trial counsel for for the father for pat going to say that here my mother would not be happy with me i mean that she's not easy to get along with that she's cantankerous you know i would not want to have to parent a child with ok most of us would not ok but nothing she did just because she was difficult or a jerk to pat and said things like you know you need to get along with me you need me more than i need you i'm in control i'm the gatekeeper she may have done all those things and it's not a good thing for a parent to do it is not cooperative co parenting but there was no evidence that her doing that had any negative effect on dixie in fact the only evidence that anything that went on between the parties or perhaps the more negative aspects of either party's personality had any david in effect on dixie was between the two days of testimony testimony in this case was separated by roughly three weeks i guess it was a night or two before the last day of testimony and it was dixie's birthday in the parking lot when kristen and pat were doing an exchange and pat then fiance a list that was present believe she was sitting in the car pat wanted dixie and agreement to dixie would be returned the next day because he didn't roll her in school unbeknownst to kristen he just assumed he was going to win and when kristen was saying no you know she's in school here starting here he called her he said something to the fact of great f ing parenting while dixie was there crying i mean i would be more concerned about his negative behavior the way he's treating kristen the other thing is things that they complain about with kristen that the g l and the judge take fault with you know she's not easy to get along with she's hostile she's difficult she's a gatekeeper she's a shrew whatever term you prefer all of those things aside from the fact that there was no indication that those affected best interests i mean not all parents so what about the ability to foster a relationship with you here the g a o that's very important i agree with you well first of all there was no indication that dixie was having any trouble in her relationship with patty ga out you could point to judge seem to have only rely on indicates something to the effect of both of these parents have a great relationship with this child there was no you know i can be the biggest you know why and you need to get along with me better than i get along with you the remedy for that let's just say that she was awful we first of all let's not forget she has sole decision making at this point and he had essentially abdicated whenever she invited him to take part he advocated he didn't want any part of it he made some decisions for dixie which in the scheme of things my client didn't care that he enrolled her for swimming lessons should have told her yeah but she didn't and i mean who cares i mean really how is that in effect a child if one parent rolls them for swimming lessons he didn't roll the child for school and didn't tell her until they're in the parking lot and he curses at her in front of their child but everything that they try to make an issue about that she's difficult to get along with that she may have you know not co parenting with them well first of all she wasn't under an obligation at that point motion and there had been a court appearance with judge were l petition then for modification and i admit that this creates of confusion here but what is not confusing is position of judge choreo throughout the entire hearing because other than the fact that judge choreo early on in the hearing all this for hearing on the petition for modification all of his remarks after that point clearly reflect  as an initial determination of custody he had i think three or four conversations where he was conversing with counsel for the plaintiff when they were talking about the fact that this was an initial determination and the attorney agree in fact the attorney at one point a very active to a question by the attorney for the defendant and and the basis of his objection was there is no prior judge so it seems to me that at this point in the proceeding what we're looking at is an initial determination and whether that initial determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence i disagree with counsel and coun the mother's way that says i don't believe so i don't believe so i think that the guardian ad litem viewed this case much the same way that the judge views case that there was a real big problem in this case and the big problem was the interference with the parenting ability of the other parent whether there was a fostering of this relationship between the trial and the other parent i'd like to go back for a moment and talk thirteen she testified that she was in the process of moving back to decatur in fact she testified she had a job interview indicated the following day so we had a pretty much equal parenting arrangement she was holding historian but it was pretty much an equal parenting type of arrangement where he was going to have a child from wednesday to sunday and if she was moving back to the care they were going to be in the same community in fact very short time there after the two of them are living together again indicator and then that last period i think of four months and at the end of that four months she's still living in decatur they're still living in the fire to the fact of when she moved down there she did not move down there because of the drugs she moved down there to move in with him and in fact was living in tampa while there was testimony about her having a lea trial is approaching then she purchases a home and she's at that point is living in edwardsville but the point is that when you have one parent living in one community and another parent who's living in the other community that situation is ripe for a parent to create a hostility to the other parent any interference with good parenting skills of the other parent and it seems to me if there's one thing that everybody agrees all warriors and i think all judges and all psychologists that we all agree on is this latest terribly important for both parents to have a meaningful relationship with china yes one one parent can happen to be assigned to have parental not be evident when the child seven or eight years old but they manifest themselves they become evident in fact our statute says one of the factors that could or should look at in determining  child is the ability to to promote and facilitate the relationship the will to promote the relationship between the child and the other parent and it seems to me that the evidence is supportive that begs exactly what patrick would do and the evidence is far from be in support of the facts which a person in fact the evidence is contrary the evidence is is not only did she move to a different community tell him where she was living at down there and gave some reason for that is she didn't think that she should so there was a hostility there which was manifest more so on her par and as a result of that his relationship with the child had to be a factor now and in an isolated world is she a good parent or is he a good parent i think the evidence is that they both have that ability but were they both acting as good parents were they both doing everything for the benefit of the child prioritizing the child and the child and i think the air in the record is that's not the case so was there evidence within the record for judge korea at the bases decision point clearly there was clearly or was this is far different than the white cough case you know in the white co case where they the court reversed the decision in that case you have a guardian ad litum report that went the other way you had a child it went the other way that both of them said that the child should be with the mother and the court ruled in favor of the father and basically it was the child would be better living in the same town as the father you know where the father honor just because the judge viewed this as an initial determination of custody doesn't mean it's right if that was accurate i wouldn't be standing here in springfield illinois today mr geyser takes issue with the fact that we don't want we almost want that i mean like we're trying to get you to review this to know to have a new trial here we're not doing that but the reality is when you look at family court cases and custody decisions the reality is they tend to be very fact specific so let's look at the facts here he makes a great deal of the fact that kristen was hostile and then we take this jump to it's not in dixie's best interest because she's not fostering a relationship yet there was not one iota of evidence that my clients perhaps nasty gram texting and that kind of behavior had any negative effect on dixie i mean these people are going through a break up there in the stages after a break up my client didn't share her address the reason she didn't share the address is because her boyfriend byron was harassing our pat knew where she was she had her cell phone he met with her every time and the remedy for that is not to change primary parenting time and to move a child whatever but if one hundred twenty miles away it's maybe cause or have your attorney send a letter saying we need the address if it's not this there is no evidence anywhere that shows first of all that there was any substantial change but even if you do find substantial change there's no evidence anywhere that this was necessary to serve dixie's best interest not in book of what they were approving this trial from her home her school her friends in the community none of that was looked at i'm also concerned that  be living in the house with this child gets into a bar fight of such an extreme extent that she threatens the bartender with i'm an attorney which she was not at the time she had just graduated law school so she wasn't even the train if she was i'm sorry if you're drinking too much in a bar due to out there by majestic you can't do this to me now i mean and i don't cry i'm going to turning you can't do this but what kind of i mean what kind of example does that set i mean is there any concern that this woman allie is going to be the female parent in this house one of two parents if we change custody and this is how she's behaving in public that's kind of aggressive behavior nobody took issue with that but the fact that kristen had some nasty gram texting was not a problem also quickly the parenting plan i believing anybody can think that's in dixie's best interest even if you were to change primary parenting to pat suddenly the woman the parent that this child was predominantly live with is now getting fifty six days a year the parenting plan says that all of the parenting plan is huge it actually indicates kristen has three hundred ninety days and patents fifty six but when parents live this far away usually the parent who lives far away gets you know a significant time around the holidays none of that the way the holidays work the parent gets the child who has been the night before otherwise you get the child from like one to seven pm when them in two hours apart and no time during the summer it just doesn't make sense this whole opinion the whole decision and the adoption of the parenting plan it's almost as if the judge couldn't read it and there's no way that parenting plan can be in dixie best interest to you is that a parenting plan she did not and i don't know why she had the majority of parenting time but even if she didn't the i am d m a is not meant to be issue an order requiring her attorney to submit a parenting plan but even if she didn't you don't adopt a parenting plan that's contrary to the child's best interest even and primary time was given to pack christian had made all the decisions for this trial nobody pointed out one problem this child had or anything that was an indication that this child's best interest would not continue to be served maintaining the status quo yet suddenly pat who didn't even want to copy of this child's insurance card is making medical decision the guy who came to edwardsville to meet at the y m c a christian set up an afternoon of him meeting with the child's daycare preschool provider the director of the school all that all he did was spend twenty minutes there mainly trying to garner information about christian not attending the child on certain days i mean you can't she's in preschool christian would sometimes take a day off of work instead of sending her to preschool would take her to the magic house for the day or the museum or the science center i mean this isn't bad for a kid it's not like she's taking her out of high school to take her skiing and she