adoption as we all know there is a guardian ad litem appointed in the guardian ad litum job is to represent the best interests of the child to the court in this case recommended that be adopted by my client she said my recommendation is that you get petition for adoption be approved the g a o recognized the sibling relationships but found that they were to me that several of the witnesses who testified were workers with d c s and they were not aware of that they were not aware of the domestic violence that occurred in the home other than perhaps between sarah and her parents but there was more laid out a chart of all the domestic violence that i could collect from the record in the home of the rankest expand small tight generations and it involves more than just sarah it involves other members and it was raised because sarah kids you now see the murderer mother was then a child and as a child she suffered and as far as expert witness testimony we did have expert witnesses in this case i hired an expert who perform reason one of the why not the only one there are there are several but one of them is that we didn't find out about the most recent domestic violence until now what during the trial right during trial yes all the most open their mouth too much but i was real clear on exactly what occurred you rahner that's right it we didn't know until the trial what occurred and the testimony came in through a witness we five is that purple is that physical did we give you more detail or man you didn't get a lot of details of the detail we did get that would happen multiple times and that it involved the loud raised voices in fighting that caused the children to be scared and that the children were sometimes present and had this reaction going back to both your honor's point i would like to say that we do have in a way the ultimate expert because webster the guardianship administrator for the state of illinois testified that when children are present during violence and fighting even if they're not actually hit are contacted she said yes even very young children impacted by my lights and she said it's a psychological impact and it is a good points about she did not know but she did and she didn't know about the recent violence of my class but she did say that it is harmful to r and we do not man down and here's one of the pieces of evidence that relates to against the manifest weight of the evidence when the trial court wrote that long extensive opinion it said that there was no violence no evidence of violence after sarah went to jail everybody kind of wanted to blame this on sarah and understandably she murdered him yet but everybody wanted to put it out there in the court kind of made a finding that or ignored her why i think your position is that the trial court got it wrong mrs john edwards misstated what the evidence showed that's your position right absolutely not that it ignored it i think it ignored evidence of domestic violence by misstating that non had occurred since sarah went to prison and that's why i asked for the clarification because my concern is that perhaps there is a difference of perception because of this lack of profession as to what exactly happened perhaps the trial court doesn't consider two brothers who have been out maybe having a little too much to drink and they're jabbing at each other perhaps the court didn't consider that domestic violence well i don't know if it did are not considered that because it never said that what you just said so i'm going to assume that it didn't because domestic violence as it was described first patterson but then it was confirmed by normal range of you say yes he had had to intervene now i agree with you that we were getting this new from kyle patterson and the lawyers best friend type site i wish i had pushed kyle patterson for them but the things that kyle patterson admitted under oath and normal rank up backed up is it happened multiple times and that there were wrangles we needed to intervene now that now was it was it specified as to whether or not that nine one one they told her to staunch the wounds at the same time she called on the phone her mother and said come get the kids and that became the placement for these children and it was never touched and it was never changed my clients tried desperately to get involved in the juvenile case and were not allowed and then they became licensed foster parents just for the heck of it so they could be available for all three children and then they appeared in court and petition to adopt do you contest whether or not d c or best follow proper procedure here you say when you argue in your brief that basically the mother got to choose the placement if she did  kept the child with the maternal grandparents they i think they in good faith thought that the child should be with her twin sisters i do not deny that that is a good thing and i don't think anybody has contested that at that time she did not know of the ongoing domestic violence she said that was her job to know that and at the time she signed that affidavit then she went to court and she testified she testified and then i'm sorry let me move back one step before she went to court to testify after she'd done her affidavit that before she appeared in court the two d c s best administrators deb retire webster the outgoing and  went to visit the guesses that is fine they were doing some sort of investigation of the best interests of the child because there was ongoing litigation i appeared at the home as the lawyer for the ets the and yet as were asked if they would honor the foster relationship and bond between why and the wrangles should they be allowed to adopt and they both said yes they would then deborah dyer webster appeared in the morning and she lied about melissa and she said no they were not and then i got up and i said i was there could i ask you could you clarify did either charles or melissa yet say that they would allow she said yes charles did we know what that is to the adoption is that something that you believe was heavily relied upon by brick or i believe that the c f s abused its discretion and i believe that the court relied on d c effects and that of an injury as to firemen which under the statute for best interest factors is a consideration a factor in a seriously heavily weighed consideration and that the court part of wrong and win against the manifest would be evidence i am not saying other than that but i do think that all of these different things and there's lots of evidence as you are all aware well aware but i am also aware i do think that my client's position that the manifest weight of this evidence because of the dangers involved in a jury's environment should have favored them well let me ask this question they've eternal grandparents of the prevailing party serious children might be involved but with the drummer in this case they said here what if i may go ahead i understand what you're saying but i also have not changed my position on this appeal if you look at the twenty four hours before chase jets was murdered it was asked plaiting domestic violence involving michelle random now sarah kitchen now the perpetrator of that violence both the day before when she scratched gets in there's blood on his face and then she went back to the home after she had the kids out there and then they went back and then she murdered the father ok now then she calls her mother i would say that these patterns and i have read with you that you can't do sort of the past always equals the future but i would counsel sorry you're out of time let you finish your thought there but then after that you are on the town of time at this point anyway thank you all of you i would say that the patterns of domestic violence are irrelevant they've been admitted by the c f s to be relevant because they can create a future cause of harm and the g a o found them relevant whose job it is advocate for the best interests of the ch statement about some of the facts there i'm going to direct the court to where it couldn't find the testimony about the incidents involving the brothers patterson in the transcript at one thing she said was the resemblance the children were scared there is no evidence of that whatsoever kyle patterson said they were generally sleeping when these incidents happen mr patterson also what he said was that the one or the other something like one or the other of the brothers would come home sometimes to see sometimes the loud and then either  a lot these were occasional situations where they would stop by late at night now do you agree that multiple incidents of this nature took place after the child was placed we are maternal an incident took place after january first twenty six here that was probably during the relevant time because they became the foster parents on january twenty first but that incident involved just one brother tom showing up drunk she said quietly basically quiet down the road leading to laugh so that's the only incident that we know only likely happened both of those questions your honor the trial court also noted that it was i believe that this was also a stable placement and that it would be traumatic for the child to have the placement changed because of the relationship with the ranges but also placed great importance on the gun preserving the said one relationship and we think that's absolutely appropriate as specially under the circumstances of this case this is a situation where there was testimony from two experts carrie cockman who was the case manager from c y f us that these children had an mean that the simple things would have to be split my understanding is you were right because adoption of the other two children has now been approved so it would mean that they would not live together and any they never mentioned that to d c s and they never took steps now her theory you could argue it is the fact that they got a foster parent license indicates they were willing to take all three  these because you don't need one if you're taking a relative but the c f s does give preference to people with foster care a licenses so it was in their interest to get one just for a why  court in this case the roughly one through the right word we don't think that the finding that there was no domestic violence was an error after lleged incidents of domestic violence that was one with respect to that she relies on as being continuing after a while i was in the wearing go home the first is the testimony of cow patterson on cross examination by me which appears at the report of proceedings of page one seventy five and one seventy six it reads question other than sarah and chase having violent confrontations at the house where you where were present for any other violent confrontation other people in the house answer i have been there for aggressive situations or two in what situations aggressive situations between others and who are those like there are in the older brothers either tom or ten they just go out get a little too tipsy and like to open their mouth question ok and were the children present that time answer no or not while on the times when they were there was michele or norman also present yes they were both there and did they do anything to either take charge of or care for the children in that  answered well usually the kids would be asleep it was late at night type of thing and when it would happen but other than that they would tell them you know stop for the kids you know this is a family environment not a bar question did these children comply answer yeah they would typically comply if they felt still agitated they would end up leaving our i am where they ordered to leave until they calmed down usually as soon as mom said something to them they would she answers ten no longer he is a step dad he no longer does anything now makes over twenty dollars an hour this living a clean life doing great things doing nothing wrong tom is doing the same thing if he's going to do something wrong he's not allowed in my house ok the question was answered and no if they are going to be drinking they are not allowed to be back in my house question if you recall any times when  has been since january first twenty sixteen answered tom and i had said he needs to leave and go back to where he was questioned ok now you kind of cut off my question which is fine but i want to understand so tom was drunk at your house is that right answer he'd come to the house and i told him to leave now then mr paul and i both started raising why has been in their home and that this testimony really didn't come up with that date she suggested the date but by  moment michelle has essentially said that i'm the mother of these just these children is going to be my responsibility to protect them and i have told them the they're going to act that way they can't come to this house and i think that he why he'd come into the home so either agree with my analysis that the date was never agreed to or that he didn't think that any domestic violence it actually occurred merely that they'd gotten several others have testified then it would be too old to take her from this home she event time and been almost to about two weeks short of two years in the home now it's two years and eight months meaning two to had if they were being successful that they wouldn't back allow the y to have visitation with her sister so i think that had the ruling been the other way that in fact it's my clients testified and i believe in spirit through to this day that they would continue to have every other weekend and one night a week and they further indicated that if they want in a week or two in the summer to that's correct and i believe half so in summary you there were lots of things i think that the court relied upon in reaching this decision  which is in fact that my clients as as the foster parents have under section one the top part of of two of the primary statute here of the foster parent preference done properly in that they looked first to determine whether or not there was a relative who was related to all three of the siblings who were coming into care at that time of the wearing those were the only ones that fit that description and on top of it at the time the yeses were in las vegas they weren't available that night and then the second thing they have to determine is of course is that party this rally willing to take all three and yes the wearing goes work and third is home safe and in their inspection of the home itself yes it was say the issues of domestic violence again i think come back to sarah week well first of all her testimony was bad of an expert in essentially and there were tons of experts on the other side we had cary kaufman the case she's they have been adopted by the wearing of so if this court were to reverse this decision it would in fact necessarily mean that the y would not live with her arrests that didn't go forward and they involved older dates so but they weren't he wasn't free from violence just to clarify your honour's point it was just older violence that had not didn't involve tom and tim the other two brothers were told and  ways and i would like to say that for them the statute which we need to return to briefly here the best interest factor statute the half sister siblings are family ties to you why we have never doubted it but the statute is actually worded that family ties including siblings are important the statute co equal family ties between my son charles and melissa yet who are the paternal relatives that this child goes are coequal family ties and have never been trumped by the half sisters ties so i agree they are important but they are not the only important family ties and if you're going to look at the statutory factors family ties is one factor but there are many factors in the safety of children and the risks of an injury some firemen through domestic violence which this court has read has recognized the injurious environment presented to children as have all the courts in illinois it's in the brief i won't go through the cases but injuries environment can affect the other factors in the best interest the adjustment to the child's home the mental and what health of the persons involved the background and the living arrangements of the applicants to adopt there are statutory factors that play here but they don't solve the case and they didn't solve the case below when the trial court was looking at it don't was question and she was the one that said it was only once it was only tom it wasn't him he's a good guy now when she was questioned about what she did to intervene because she said she intervenes and stop the violence she said i'm a peace maker i'm ninety percent successful in my intervention and my peacemaking well that raises two questions first of all what about the other ten percent is that when somebody ends up dead on the floor like chase yes and second of all and that ninety percent what does that look like for the ninety percent when you come in and make peace what's going on she said and she said it clearly the children were a bother they didn't like the screen so we know that the children were bothered they didn't like the screaming she would get involved and as my opposing counsel pointed out she would throw them out or try to get  or get it out of her house but i would say ninety percent isn't that great a return so here's the thing that i don't understand that this is supposed to be or seems like it's one bridge or you know why i was in this pursuit more of make a better it wasn't fleshed out as much frankly it was a bit of about going to brokers and i think pay are not available and we didn't pursue that and we were mid trial and  better trial lawyer may have elicited more information but we do have information and d c s itself could have followed up on that information because it said itself it should have known that so not only th petitioners attorney but d c i facets that self at that point could have followed up on that information this was one of their children in their care thank you very much thank you counsel will take this matter under advisement and be in recess