being pointed out in closing arguments great closing arguments was the most pertinent order order entered in july of two thousand and two that is when the trial court filed a written order which  if the parties were to share in the cost of transporting the child the trial court in this in this case with all due respect to it went back and looked only half an agreed order it was or or is ordering my client to pay almost twelve thousand dollars dating back to expenditures that were her as late as or as early as december of two thousand and three keyboarder  the testimony was hearing in two thousand and ten yes both parties testified they believe jesse who is now twelve years old and does have some handicaps yes he should not travel who was going to be obligated to pay for the costs dating back to two thousand and two looking to the circumstances then julie left the state of illinois two he understood that he was obligated to pay one of cassidy's claim take it that was what the order was that's what he did when he made the payment julie submits to him pay our bills within thirty days of travel so within the two thousand and four read order it wasn't that issue who was obligated to pay her expenses and in fact the parties behaviors all the way up until this year in these hearings in late zero nine the party's previous behaviors demonstrated the two thousand and two was to grant julie visitation and all reasonable times and including in the state of oregon but that mr durst would pay one half transporting reason i say they are honor is because really we should only be looking at the circumstances have had time to determine why the court said what it said in that order and the circumstances she decided to leave the state of illinois she left her child she didn't leave for any reason other than another individual i'm not placing judgment on them however  thousand and eight when she writes an e mail to the doctor and says you know why do i travel so to come get the child because i can i could have i could leave them on a plane just escort the airline  cort clearly even as of two thousand and eight julie had no understanding that mr durst was responsible to pay her transportation costs and for the courts into  him to rewrite viewers and tell mr service not only are you responsible for the bulk of his medical needs all the patients need saturday but now we're going to go back and require that you pay julie twelve thousand dollars dating back to travel expenses two thousand and three i think number one your honour's initial order was clear and when you look to the intent already at that time  julie's two and now you're going to pay her twelve thousand dollars so at a minimum if the trial for it was going to rewrite the order it should have all obligated mr jur trial in fact every time before this trial traveled or she traveled to pick up her child visitation she sent an e mail and said verification of the total expenses for both she and the child now it is undisputed that mr jeffs response was i'm not sometimes he would pay none of those expenses sometimes he would choose to only pay half of the child's expenses sometimes he was refused to pay  incurred on behalf of the child i believe about her it's really expenses yes but but her expenses are now are a part of what was necessary in order and were heard on behalf of the minor child the reasons why she didn't take action and if if you the transcript would indicate there were numerous financial issues from my client over the period of the years and if in fact mr durst would have never interfered with her visitation if he would have never found them and claiming that she had owed him medical expenses it is possible that my client because of her limited income she may have never come to court to address these issues she very well may have done what she had to do in order to visit with her child that says to cut against the grain of you know experience if if you don't have much money this apparently she does kno from which to do that i would say that that would be that that's probably not consistent with common practice and custom in practice currently in the family law industry but i will tell you this ill looking at the order now where it was not yet saying that was the intent of judge freeze years ago but if you look at the orders there are only two orders in fashion here and if you look at the plain language of the waters and you are saying the language of those orders there again as it was clear that both of these parties had an obligation to meet the expenses of this child and getting him here for visitation which include yes she did in fact prior to mine in that case when that she knew that that was when she had a prior counsel who i believe subsequently passed away and then i came on board after that gentleman but there was a i believe that there is testimony indicating that there were demands for payments once became involved i don't know if there's a written document showing a letter from council making their demand but there was clearly an acknowledgement by mister with that he became aware that there was a fact this request for reimbursement which he believed that he had no obligation to pay or refused to pay because consistently he said that she had the obligation to pay our own ticket it does not in any way say that he doesn't have an obligation to share one half of the expenses but lated to getting this child here is the evidence at trial was  traveling with you i've been traveling with him to get him to you you look at the state of illinois that's your obligation but nowhere in a court order those that place that obligation on her all court orders say they have an equal obligation the only apparently in two thousand to two thousand and three two thousand and four never asked if it is fair to her position that the court tended or wanted to pay half of her transportation costs because everyone knew she'd never use the court to intervene she never use the court to clarify she never used the court directly to say you have to do this in for seventy here years this matter continues into such times not all brings court she was going to visit her child regardless he wouldn't participate and then your honor to be quite honest with you if there was no litigation on this matter and my client and have the funds to hire an attorney to f will against him she would be continuing to this day to pay for travel expenses necessary for her to see her little boy we guy was of whether or not she could have been more passive and she could have created more conflict high priority has always been throughout the course what additional expense you've ever been to raise that issue well there would have been some additional expense and it probably would have been an appropriate time to raise it at that time but i think it with this quote would probably be surprised by the expense that it took in order to determine in a manner a judgment about that was doing only my client in these past proceedings and so at some point if the cost of fighting over it doesn't warrant the expenditures and again my client wanted to see her child there she had to pay these expenses in order to see the child if she would not have done so she would have not had a relationship with her child and so i think my client cho in fact indicated that there was a conflict there is a disagreement in regard to whether or not you have to pay her expense a half of her expenses and half of the child that was acknowledged during the testimony of both parties this dispute existed they knew that it existed and in fact as it relates to their being in agreement there was no evidence of an agreement there were multiple documents and e mails provided to the court none of them indicated an understanding between these parties  an agreement that she agreed she he didn't have an obligation to pay it there were e mails to indicate that he said if you want to see i'm going to be able to pay the expense because i'm not going to pay it and she testified in court i made the decision to pay it because to not pay it then i would not see my child but then that type of bullying does that mean that we this order should be written there is no we writing of the order if you look at the terminology of the two orders it says travel expenses incurred on behalf of the parties child how have the child expenses and help of julie's expenses were determined by the cour be necessary expenses incurred on behalf of the minor child in fact was supported by the testimony of both parties could she have addressed this earlier absolutely the reasons why she did it was because she wanted to see your already in court she didn't have a choice not to she was in a court in two thousand and four but she was in court in oh nice and in reply to my means that he claimed her owed to her which the e mail exchanges clearly show her position was i don't owe you pleading only said for monies owed for transportation even the fleeting didn't set out the fact that they were contending that he had her monies to it was not until the course of discovery there were no demands and i will represent to this court there were no demands prior to that indicating that that was a position that was being taken again until the course of discovery and after the april two thousand