twenty eleven then in a role of twenty twelve leah filed a second removal as her husband tom had been transferred to maine program there they did the trial court denied the subsequent removal petition but stated it's order so is matters now stand and drexel have been living in maine since summer second with respect to the merits that it was against the manifest weight of evidence to deny the subsequent removal to first with respect to the statutory basis and this is based on a case by the navy to paris that comes out  to the state of alaska later the mom was planning on moving to the state of texas and the subsequent removal petition was filed and in that fifth district the statutory provision deals with removing children from illinois that's what the statute sets i section six zero for a feeling on marriage and dissolution marriage act specifically says speaks don't think will be fair to say that the court could never never hear it again and i don't really think that this is a jurisdictional issue i think it's a removal issue so if the parent remaining who continue to live in illinois filed a petition for instance to change custody i think courts don't have jurisdiction to hear that but in terms of removal i think that the statute does say from illinois and once removal from illinois has been a while out then that parent is free to remove to a different state so and especially when you're looking at military families like this this holds up suggestion that every time there is a move one has to return to court is certainly burton something on the a custodial parent and you know best for the child and for herself in terms of there's these removal issues and to various has been on the books since two thousand and six the bar hasn't changed in terms of how it's written in terms of from illinois and to the reasons why removal was allowed in the first place those reasons are still in full force and in fact today and those had to do with her being a very good mother  been being in the military this being a solid marriage this is now a four year marriage that the two of them have that my client was there to meet this child when he got off the bus there to things this is by judge sanchez's account an extremely good mother who has since the birth of this child made very very good decisions for this child the the reasons the better set forth in school in maine and basically his rock has always been his mom in terms of the woman who's in charge and who has taken care of and made sure of that he was nurtured and loved and cared for her husband tom was deployed to afghanistan which is basically you have two separate homes he was living in port yet for campbell before he was deployed on the financial ramifications that come with that patients that come back and that's basically what is at issue here is having two separate households two separate incomes and all the rest of those things and i think when looking at the cases in the fourth district in other cases throughout illinois  find a job i think that legally she could if that were the case return to the state of kentucky if she can find a better job there i think that she could you know return perhaps somewhere to this area this whole concept that has been advance parker's that you know this child back in the school to examine kindergarten and first grade and so on and so forth it's a matter that i don't know that that would happen and certainly our client would not be living with her husband and would have the financial problems associated with that all accounts this is a very happy child he invites the step siblings i think the examples that are being set for him in the household  step siblings and by all accounts he's crazy about them they're crazy about him and it's a very positive household situation so i think we are looking at a very there's the whole eckert standard that the court and i'm sure the court's very familiar with the whole eckert standard it's been cited i time and time again and one of the factors there is the likelihood of advancing the general quality of life for the mom of the child and i think in this particular cas achievable the visitation schedule that was in place for kentucky has remained in place and has been followed there's been no contempt attention's filed with respect to that at all showing that visitation is is very achievable the airport  bangor maine is very close to where my client lives her family is here in terms of christmas and thanksgiving and those sorts of things her family is all here anyway and we're part of the continental united states i think th visitation the proposal set forth for my client with extended visitation in the summer with extended visitation over the christmas holidays spring break and thanksgiving many of them which she would absolutely have all of the transportation because she would be coming here anyway make for very meaningful achievable visitation not perfect but certainly meaningful and doable has as has been evidence since move took place in terms of  is page after page of what a good mother my client has been not just a good mother in terms of her taking care of this little boy but in the fact that she i do think gets to visitation with mr partridge under very tough and then there after there was another incident involving drinking he ended up pleading guilty to reckless driving all in all cost his licensed not have a license well i believe after three years she went and picked him up in took him to the child sporting events it's a school events a she facilitated the visitation i think the record in this case of her having facilitated even the visitation in from kentucky she did it she is the one who did that arrange that the silicate it sent e mails and here's how we should do it she's the one who promoted phone calls and so forth and the record shows mr partridge though he loves his child very much i'm quite sure he was not the one who was spearheading that he was not spearheading visitation he never wants went to kentucky one time that my client half way so in addition to being a really good mom she also has worked had little to no relationship there was a daughter that was spoken of i think you've met like three times i've missed mr parker's daughter one time he better at a bar i think it weevils another time it buffalo wild wings or something very little relationship n tom my client's husband he has two children one of them fourteen years of age and one of them who is in college right now who tours this i'm sorry and they have a very good strong relationship  amended in two thousand and three specifically section sixteen was put in there to allow modification of an order for support custody visitation or removal so the legislature of the general assembly has gone through in set out  said i have to get out of the military when i reach twenty nine years that's not discretionary that's mandatory for a person in my position and that's a very key fact and way to distinguish this case from pretty much any other that's out there in terms of being reported case football all those things those are the same kids that he's going to be around that's abilities important progress on the i think it's important for a couple of reasons first the evidence was that wrestles a child with learning disabilities is a very difficult time in school and it's important when the second removal petitions being filed this isn't a leap so it was the court can't deny this they've already granted of once not only should i be allowed to take the child to mean i should go to take the child anywhere else that my new husband gets for assigned to i should never have to come back to the trial court i don't think that's a good life think that the better course is for the court to say just reading from illinois to words as being a restriction of the court's authority in in a way you have the ability to continue and believe in force specific statutory authority to expert opinion it's reports made it very clear that the parent jackin dissolution act when they were amended in two thousand and three by the general assembly were designed to be read synonymously that they're they're supposed to be similar so that there's not much distinction between a divorce case  moving is my client is here in illinois he doesn't have access to a lot of information there wasn't a whole lot of testimony other than what leo would report or said or he ability for my client really to cross examine that to a large extent as to what's going on in m drexel school a child who was throughout the day in school to say that just getting benefit yes he doesn't some indirect benefit but you know i would love to be a stay home dad i don't get it do that just just choose i mean that's a choice that lee has made yes it does benefit this child but in the context of this decision prior to this legal work we had a great job here in springfield she made forty one thousand dollars working at the city of springfield she has a high school education that job  had benefits and a pension fantastic job that she gave up and choosing to follow her husband it wasn't brand new husband by the way was the husband that she married two years prior a cheap chosen to live apart from tom for two years and though he was in afghanistan he was for a portion of that but not all of it the record is that of the two years at least a year that he was in fort campbell and he will birching issue armor occurred in these other factors a removal law and it found that all of those that the realistic visitation schedule was not feasible in this case i think that the manifest way the evidence is consistent with finding the  old this doesn't strike me as particularly took her well for for nine years of his life he had a very strong relationship with his father and working with us what other than this temporary notion of what w doing others twenty some pages of things at my client's house where he had day to day interaction with his son where he built a sandbox with this child where he did swings and did all those kind of physical activities that very simply are the bond that he has with this child and so with this child in maine that strong relationship that randy has with this son drexel is is going to be gone it's not going to be the same relationship and i think that was part of just mention what i did in here's why i think when you have to look at the people involved in the that's why you have these cases there are very facts the pending for whatever reason wendy's contacts and his relationship with his son is physical relationship where they do things together physically it's not a hate we're going to call up and talk about your day they don't he doesn't have the kind of relationship with his son there might be a different fact pattern where you have a parent and a child where they are they do have a back and forth on the phone or have some other ability to have a long distance relationship here there are some specific facts which which basically say that that's really not something that works in this case you know specifically  know my client was involved in serious accident does have some very serious medical conditions but he can't be in a car for a long period of time he can't sit for a long duration in a plane instance so the evidence you know it is again it's very fact this this if and when you start looking at the ability to to transform it have a realistic and reasonable visitation schedule which is why i think the case law says that in this particular fact pattern it's just so i don't know what the basis was but yeah so we could have done that a bit but for whatever reason the judge said that he would not hear any argument on on the contempt issue but i would have asked that and i think in terms of what the perjure so for contempt so which are yours that is the argument yes that that this could have been remedied by some visitation being made up there are two separate contempt fissions filed one had to do with violation of the oral admonishment by judge sanchez that lee was not to take any permanent steps to remove the child to kentucky from illinois do you think there was an order i do and i think that oral admonition i wasn't there so i don't know but  judge made it very clear in his statements that he very clearly stated you're not to take permanent steps in context i don't know how someone who is has a removal petition on file takes a child and then moves them to kentucky knowing that there's an order that says don't take permit steps to me that there's not a whole lot i can say to argue that other than it can't be very much more clear in my opinion when you enroll a child in school if you're trying to advance your removal petition significantly put yourself in a better position than the fundamental problem that i have with that and what's in the briefs is that in context the petition or the person trying to remove the child should have the burden of proof if that's what the supreme court says that's what the statute provides that the person asking for removal should have the burden of proof and when you allow that person to go ahead and roll the child in school essentially they're there basically getting out of that burden of proof outs of present custodial situation is kentucky schools there can be a pretty fine line drawn in terms of that was not proper you can't just enroll the child school when there's a pending petition on file to for injunctive relief to keep the status quo that's the fundamental problem that but i have a second rule show cause had to do with ongoing visitation interference now counsels made the argument that her  facilitated visitation through throughout this i don't think that's the case and if you haven't it was fairly clear that there were problems with visitation from june two thousand and twelve on words and that that you got even worse once that first petition on any exhibits that was attached to the december order there wasn't anything in writing in terms of what specific days what my client's rights weren't regards to visitation i think that the truck or air the terms of doing that that's why we asked for specific visitation schedule and in the august order was that there were problems that there was gamesmanship that was going on in terms of not providing information to my client not allowing visitation not scheduling visitation not contacting him that the removal is a custody judgment and that my client could never attack the very first removal petition in this case there was ongoing proceedings after the two thousand and eleven  applies to custody judgments removal order is a visitation order and i've cited the case of four or five different cases in this case in the shadow this court of most recent cases shadel said that six ten court should have gone back in when it had the second removal petition in front of it and should have simply reopen the evidence as the first one in vacated that in and that goes to the trial of course to question a few minutes ago in terms of if we reverse this ah first with respect to the ten year from tom bannister in the military in addition to that being him believing in his military service that is his job i mean  sixty thousand dollars a year doing it it's fourteen hundred dollars a month for his housing allowance and his job and he testified to in addition to believing in the mission of the army that going out in terminating his job when he's got a family to support perhaps include his his health insurance and everything else is through tom answer that it is something he doesn't want to do because he wants to be able to support his family so that their that's a significant factor there with respect to the visitation issues that counsel spoke about there simply isn't evidence that visitation did not occur visitation happened regularly and continuously based on a visitation schedule that my client had proposed because mr bannister had not proposed a visitation schedule and there were there are things in the record like my client at the end of a full sending a a e mail saying how about this for your four weeks of returning the frank boss the little boy's testimony in the in camera interview was basically my dad doesn't like to talk on the phone so he is practice there isn't some contact but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be phone contact or that there couldn't be frank right to it's just not violation the testimony that was presented and there was testimony presented on that was that he only this situation problems that all were my client why being a bit late on friday because of the child physical and his life mom had done everything magical he had been to one parent teacher conference mom had done all of the matter all of the school types of things so in terms of stability that whole corps of mom being in charge and mom taking care of business very much that stability continues with respect to the older daughter of tom bannister that continues she continues in college which many many families have kids who are in college that doesn't show instability that actually shows stop and is basically setting very good example for or to excell there is nothing indicative of this being anything other than a strong family as just example to mention there was a period of time when tom baxter was in afghanistan about a year my client opted not to move to fort campbell to maintain things in illinois into that