think that's really was behind judge tucker's frustration he said you guys got to meet on saturday or sunday and you got to sit down and got to talk about actually pop in person child and i think right some things at this stage it seems to me a few the parties agree on i don't think that either party thinks the court or think it would if it potentially workable for them from their point of view of the five if if i may because they were good they were consistent throughout if they could stay in man i mean one of the things the judge tried to do was give the mother more time and she had every other weekend in two evenings a week but she wanted more time i would too but what the children apparently haven't they expressed satisfaction with the way the order has worked they did they did they also expressed that they don't want to go to the beacon schools next year and  don't they don't want to leave what they had him while that is an open question i guess under the order miss miss miss turner has made back and forth and i tried to if i tried to wonder just what judge tucker was hoping to achieve and i think he was hoping to require to do it i  meeting or the possibility of alternating school districts year by year through these children's junior high and high school experience yes that they seem to the problem is for from their perspective and they were consistent throughout they want they want they want to stay where they been all their lives and where where all those connections are where they're friends and so you're faced with it and order which has its style they don't want because of the potential of the change th which neither party wants over parties one or custody as a result of you know make a decision on the record give my client so custody let's move on and part of that part of that is this is doing archaia spitting part of it has to do with the expense involved part of it has to do with the wear and tear of the children i mean these are smart kids and and and they're aware of of the problem solution but it seems to me that you could decide it although from a from a more logical perspective it seems to me we've got just tucker there who were three and a half days of testimony was much more intimately involved then in the facts of the people and you could tell him this one doesn't work the parties don't like to give him some guidance as to what you think you should do but but send it back to him for him to fashion something more or better i'm afraid i'm to the point where i'm i i i don't think the and and this is just an aside because i went to and i see ellie where i learned with the new pact that the supreme court has indicated a positive approach to letting greater respect and a greater acceptance of the decision that's made and a greater feeling that somebody else so if you end up sending it it depending on whatever you decide if you end up sending it back i would request because we request twice in camera interview for children who want to speak to a judge talk to the decision and it was objected to and denied was that you suggest or encourage chooses medical and religion right  logistical problems if i'm the one with religion and i want to go on sunday to mandatory church so as was noted by the g a o and i said i think is is this extensive list or record that it's a joint responsibility i think on a practical matters you find them when wrestling season came around the two nights that practice were nights that she had she didn't like the fact that so so they moved one up so what i would call on the practical day to day stuff they communicate a nation more a thing of the past when there were significant differences about medical decisions and all this and some other things or have they continued to the point of the interim or and i think the more it's all fine i think there were they were they were more in the past but i don't think and i don't know that i don't know that there were a lot of insults and accusations those were few but the tone the tone of the responses was requests for sole custody and grant sole custody to kristen turner first section six ten of the illinois marriage and dissolution marriage act the act that governed this proceeding as it took place prior to two thousand and sixteen in order to terminate custody terminations you must look at the best interests of the child and those interests were determined by the factors set forth in section six zero two chief among those those factors was factor number eight which looked at the willingness and ability of each parent facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and child oh nor could courts have given such great w this factor that they have granted sole custody to a facilitating parent when they found that the other parent was not facilitating despite the fact that the child was residing in the non facilitating parent home and it just did to their community preferred to stay with the non facilitating parent bonded with the non facilitating parent and they be noise teleports of even done this in contravention of the recommendation of court appointed experts guardian ad vitamins and even the facilitating parent know the words in cases where the silly teen parent only asked for joint custody only courts have given them sole custody because they hold this factor in such high regard in this case the evidence is unambiguous and on contradicted in the fact that mr clawson was unwilling or unable to facilitate and encourage a relationship between the minor children and mrs turner the detail in this case the eyes and ears of the court and the person tasked with representing the best interests of the child after trial after hearing testimony did change your stance from the stance that mr ganti represented you just moments earlier in fact what she said after trial was that the testimony and evidence show clearly and convincingly that has been unwilling to communicate openly with kristen on matters pertaining to the wellbeing of their children and has engaged in a long term pattern of restricting her relationship with them she concluded noncustodial does not mean non parent but this is essentially how kristen has been regarded with respect to kristen the g a o find that christian has demonstrated not only her strong desire an intention to be intimately involved with children but also willingness to initiate and facilitate communication between ken and the children in other words she's not willing to talk to kim's walk i'm unaware of that being a major issue there i don't think that's a co chair she doesn't want isn't it i mean i don't disagree with the point you're making about facilitation but one of the things i noticed and placed correctly is this you know there's a lot of that i read that suggested she said flatly i don't really want any communication and i don't want any interaction and i may be stating that more strongly than with my husband's present wife and yet that present wife would their custody is on one side of the other is going to be just as significant as her husband who she then wants to tout as a you know is a good f facilitator if you will even communicate with the person who has a very significant part in your children's lives no matter where custody o is place i guess i did not and i could be wrong as you said the record was was vast but i was not aware of a blanket statement that miss turner refused to deal with mr clawson is current wife no one will dispute that there were absolutely communication issues and as you said we are here what i would ask the court to take note of is like i said kristen is not a perfect participant in this matter however the g a o l made clear that she made much more of a facilitating effort then did ken and the trial judge the individual who sat through all the testimony and was tasked with making these decisions indicated that the g l hit the nail on that that when making this determination that your client there ha said i don't know that she was ever asked i'm pretty confident that there's no evidence in the record that she would be willing to kill her and mr turner have a pretty good life now kenneth argues and counsels argued to this point that regard this of the facilitation breakdown that he should maintain sole custody relying on really three factors in the six o two  the wishes of the children children the interaction in a relation of the children to people they have relationships with and manage bill and as well as are just in it to the community and i would  court that those factors also supported grant of sole custody to kristen not can with respect to the wishes of the children as we pointed out in our grief eleanor the courts have said that children of this age their wishes while they should be considered they're given less weight then if you're sixteen seventeen years old they were ten years old when they stated intention or preference to say more importantly illinois courts have said that when the preference to stay in a certain community purser residential situation is due to friendships and school life which is what mr dancy represented to the poor were the reasons for their statements and which i think the record is clear were the reasons for the children statements that again gives that preference less weight then if the preference is stated because it will bond to the parent there's nothing in the record that i come across that the children want to stay with can it because they feel a closer bond than with kristen and in fact if you at the record the g a o report in the case of children said the exact opposite during the six month period where they're doing one week on one week off with kenneth and kristen all three children said they did not want to choose between their parents but what's important is they did desire more time with kristen and so if you have a fifty fifty split and you're asking for more time with one of the parents that's a request or a statement of you're right as far as the g a o report is very other may have been in the testimony that took place with respect to that that supplemental report i'm very confident that somewhere in the record they did ok in the it's in our reply brief and so it's not in the reply brief then i am miss state with respect to the third factor the interaction in a relation between the kids and individuals and their current sex i think the record is pretty clear that cannabis inability to maintain top your relationships of self have affected the children negatively he got upset with his parents and that this allowed the children to see their parents their grandparents and the parents expressed concern to kristen about that and said the same happened with his brother and his family  his family converse leaders evidence that in both of those situations kristen took the initiative to let the kids see tennis family to try to maintain those relationships there's also no evidence of similar family strife or relationship breakdowns in the turner household finally a kind of ancillary related this factor the work schedules would make sole custody makes so much more sense sense for chris chris and has a flexible work schedule she works three days a week works from home the other kids and even when she has to go into work she's home before the kids get home from school kenneth works twelve hour shifts this is require him to allow drug makers and drug doers watch their kids and i point out that was in violation of the j p a's requirement that he give kristen the children and the cost and there was evidence that the relationships are fine with the children in the boston household but there is also room there was also evidence that there were relationships are just  overall issue in this case is that maybe those relationships and i can't even say maybe i would say those relationships would be just as strong had canada allows for more participation encourage more facilitated more participation with kristen the g a o was very clear on this point that the kids wanted to do more activities and peek in they were afraid did they did not like when kristin asked for them to do more activities and she couldn't because they knew that it would get upset and kept can it flat out told g l that he doesn't let them do stuff and peek in because that's not their community but they were doing stuff that he thinks is necessary to win a trial he doesn't necessarily do things that he thinks is necessary for the best interests of children once he sees a potential  this is a day it's a unique case it's a strange and unique judgment or that it almost seems as  what's best for the children one could argue that what's best for the children is what's going on right now but what's in the best interests of the parents is to have one of them feel that they're  charge and that i don't think that's what the act contemplates but at the same time i recognize that there is stress on the children and there is disruption but usually when you're talking about the best interests of children you don't have children that are five you don't have children they cooperate better than their parents do you don't have children that have loving relationships on both sides of the family and you also don't have any exposure to a wide range of activities because each of these families obviously have a different lifestyle and some people pay that  bad is dysfunctional or dysfunctional and confusing others might say that's exposing them to a wide world if i could only manage those not the wide world if i only maybe not a huge check but it is kind of something to consider and what a sole custody award kristen be appropriate is the fact that the children in the g a o l testified to this adapt well and the change of community would not be an issue the other thing that i would like to push back on a little bit on on the on the i guess the statement that the children are thriving are doing well is that it's very clear that the children know that kenneth serif usual to facilitate and encourage a positive relationship with kristen is an issue and they don't want to ask to do things with kristen because they know that's  while the children may be able maybe able to be resilient enough to deal with this one week on one week on one week on one week off the fact of the matter remains that the major factor implicated by the record thereof and the children are aware of it they're upset by it and they don't do things that they would otherwise like to do because of it and so we're looking at the best interests of the child which as mr gansey stated and i wholeheartedly agree that this one week on one week got if you can change schools every year you can change religions every year will not serve the best interests of the children even if it does so maybe in the past year it won't for very long they you have to look at what are these best interests factors the three that he's hung his hat on i've just stated why i believe that they are marginal at best if they don't support a sole custody award chris but the big factor is factor it that's the glaring factor from this record and that factor the g a o said kenneth refuses to facilitate kristen does a good job the silicate the judge said the g a o l hit the nail on the head when she made that observation i would just like to very quickly before my time runs i was prepared to strike debris and then i wrote and i realized i had a call to my attention wait a minute this is a cross appeal he can go eighty pages then i started looking at them the bradys more closely and yes it's true that the pageant or the spacing is not correct in the last twenty pages or whatever it is but if the spacing have been correct it would have still been under eighty pages which you will provide this permissive your honor i understand on a cross appeal that you do get an extra twenty pages but his brief was not a cross deal brief it was his appellate brief then my then my brief would have been a lot of next twenty pages his reply would have been a lot of  pages so that's why we think that is still a violation the rule even though this is a cross appeal his brief did not have anything to do with my appeal it was his appellant brief we need should have been subjected to fifty pages in that case it's fifty seven with the last little perv when they say that my guy's the machiavellian and the only reason they are that way is because he's manipulating the issue with his parents it is an example of the benefits of somebody's brother in law who's who's the babysitter was kristen martin not frank thomas frank was around because that's her boyfriend but he had dark hair yes drug record with a court the court really parent who's trying to the record is clear with respect to his efforts to communicate and then i will go back with respect to that severe instability of homelike lack of care and attention and the whole tone and style of that demand letter shows her emotional road to communication she's part and parcel of the problem pursuing further litigation