discretion review for the allocation judgments the predicate factual findings underlying the allegation goes and they are reviewed under the manifest weight standard which as we know requires you to demonstrate that the opposite is clearly parents i'm assured i want to focus on one particular finding that the circuit court made in the application doesn't that we feel drives this entire case and that is the circuit court finding that parental alienation describes the breakdown of the relationship between the child and one of the child's parents when there is no valid justification for that breakdown when one parent engages in actions that cause child or children to strongly allied with one parent and reject the other without legitimate justification we know that from the teaching experts in this case dr burnett after evans who took the fight effectively  teaching experts as to the science of parental alienation i thought particularly interesting doctor dr burnett testifying that you know this is a concept that goes back to greek mythology it's a factor that has been recognized in the in our custody statute for a long time factor eleven as it stands today the willingness and ability of each character facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child needed children there are not really dating behaviors that are recognized that the ailing aging parents engages what we want to focus on here is what was the evidence  on this issue what was the evidence on the science what was the evidence back surely that boat that go that make up the circuit courts determination that alienation wasn't afoot here in this family  were we focus on this because we really believe that this this issue d of cormorants the parental allocation calculus because this is wrong i think if we believe that reversal is required so what was the evidence court's witnesses are presumed neutral that statute requires the other stuff whether doesn't like the findings to come in and to bring him in for a purpose for cross examination there was nothing in the record from an evidentiary perspective his findings  this is fine for objective and uncontestable in that the children work has severe and uns up the side projection of my client to the extent of distorted thinking which is which is one of the hallmarks of alienation d that dr her net testify to as a sort of a between the older children and the mother d that their that their relationship is collaborative and that they want to take down my fly destroy work together to destroy his relationship with the children this was a who was appointed to pass d one of the young one of the younger children john she already diagnosed john is having an alienation syndrome as being as having hallmark symptoms of parental claim that set forth before it as well as the finding of the contribution of attorney fees without making the requisite findings for wired by our supreme court reiterated justices when we talk about the findings of visitat is purely an issue to know and in that legal issue the court committed a legal error not following the letter and by not following the black letter to a equitable division was necessarily not specifically before i get into my general prison case and i would like to say upfront that mr goodman i do dominica was wrong at least two respects john and john sample did not say that there was para parental alienation present he did not make come to that conclusion and a a final professional opinion you have to read the testimony you'll come to your own that parental alienation was present those are absolutely incorrect statements they will be refuted when the court reads the testimony of those two witnesses i just want to get that out right parenting time he says in the opinion he's couldn't that's that it would be highly detrimental to the best said serous of the children children to allocate primary parenting time to respond he didn't just say that d the best interests would be preparing to be a doctor has actually he said to be highly detrimental i think it's fascinating language i think it is an expression of how evidence there's an awful lot of evidence that parenting time should have been awarded to dr who is a lot a good amount of it actually occurred before the thirty eight day trial started this court found that he was judge kathleen message and judge william appeal on that he was abused and that stands as the holding of the record evidence that was introduced by agreement stipulation of all counsel so that was before the trial started one other event occurred in new york learn of a case and the aftershock took the kids to new york city for a few days and there was and johnny was there was physical contact between dr asop and johnny and johnny ends up with a bloody left and those in the bathroom and take some photographs that were introduced and what is about how time outs should proceed because they get so out of hand in this particular case so that hearing transpires the kids testify  the record is three a full in the testimony from the children their interviews they were complaining about the physical contact that occurred in that they and both against the children and against after years and it is the opinion of the experts and of course as i will get too soon although i think mr didden medical probably disagrees  that physical abuse by one of the parents nay gates the entire issue if you know if i had a conclusion of parental alienation peter dr burnett said that they had no opinion about whether there was parental allegation present because in essence they couldn't make it because they had alienation is present that's his bottom line position and i just want to make sure that your honors look closely at these opinions jackie jang was remarkably similar she can't make any definitive decision on parental alienation and the only thing that dr jane can conclude is if this child johnny is the only one she's involved in  see some fascinating testimony of the cross examination of the day by my colleague dan churchill d and which she talks about what i would call the pressure being applied john sample was his constant contact with her john sample was in constant contact with the parental alienation attorney from up north out of state throughout this entire case but what's important about what i'm saying right now is that dr jane testifies that when she gave sample a priest prescreening of her report because i guess she felt she had to because she was hired brought into the case by sample there is an interchange where she says that sample wanted her to add certain words to her report and those words as you'll see her testimony are the the fleeting reference quote traces of parental alienation that's what they talked about and she made a revision and submitted to all of us  as her final report she added the reference to traces to traces of parental alienation judge church in contrast found that adjustment disorder her finding had nothing to do testimony and says that for a child who is rebellious i believe that was pro or con somebody has always you know got something to say about something to their s to talk about the difficulty that these kids suffer with their dad and trying to get anything done that didn't involve some overreaction  isaf the temperature in the volume of the dialogue really went up because of his parenting and i think in large part he's very critical of doctors often find that's the problem of the case he did not find parental alienation either so really the only person you have in this long case is dr whether it's the doctor with the issues his refused to do what judge church ordered him to do the question of how much weight to give to that expert i've never seen that in forty three years of practicing law according to me that expert refusing judge's order that was very necessary for this quest so explanation whatsoever it was not just charged and he still did nothing judge church had every reason ok and we got the point you're evidence and don't be too you'll make each one of these experts look at the various facts look at the science and that is something that certain court did not do thirty four did not look at the fact that testified by the experts in specific we did not look at the your protection speaks volumes about the quality of that alleged abuse and explain for this court why such a bright line standard would never make it in practice there is a very in the grease just like anything else alienating the children as impacting them for the remainder of their years and that is something that all of the scientists doctors and everything else the buying individual the elevations of abuse no matter how hard make the matter how to failing to follow the mandate of the law even if you could implicitly find what the circuit court did not that the finding was made make would not afford to pay their own attorney fees or the actually undermines their financ more properties so if she had a higher earning capacity she has more property in addition to that that's not even considering the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that the patient not if you include those in the state is closer to  well thank you counsel for your arguments in this matter this afternoon will be taken under advisement in a written disposition shall issue and we'd like to thank you as well for participating