off it's important to note that the drink water case involving page drink water and nicholas wade page bertrand nicholas drink water that case are not even shown up in douglas county at that count case was not what the real issue was on the motions for sanctions and i think the trial court did reference those other proceedings and initially in making its ruling the trial court said druse were not it was appropriate for the jews to try to intervene in those proceedings roles were in those cases but that's a separate issue that could have subjected the drews to motions for sanctions in those cases but the issue is whether or not the only two pleadings that dru's filed in this guardianship case which was t or whether or not those petitions were not based in fact or not based on an argument that existing law could be extended to cover what the situation is that the jurors had in this case and it's not clear from the motions for sanctions reviled by her tran or or drink water that they don't reference any specific statement in you know the petitions that they believed to be a false or untrue state and again piers that most of their argument is that these petitions were somehow filed for an improper purpose my case was quite clear on that if the basis for the motion for sanctions are that the petitions are proper improper purpose then the it appears at the hearing on april rd two hundred one thousand the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof in this case and it's simply because the drews dismissed their petition for guardianship the trial court improperly concluded that really sanction should able to present their evidence then the court is not required to conduct a separate evidentiary hearing on the issue of sanctions but in this case if you simply look at the pleadings in the guardianship yes it's not clear what the court was referring to tapes what they did instead the trial court simply said well we'll we'll never know why the drews dismissed their petition will never know what the evidence is we think they'll have a hard time they would have had a hard time establishing that they had standing to pursue guardianship because what the trial court i guess was able to glean from these other cases whether or not the drews would have had a hard time just absent their stand and seek guardianship is not the same as plain as being parents seem to dispute the fact that the drews had physical custody of these two children at the time they filed their guardianship days but again as i referenced earlier i believe the trial court used an incorrect standard or determine whether or not a parent who is willing and able to provide care for the children but the court said well you know that's not enough i think sanctions are appropriate because we have to judge parents out there who are willing and able to make child care decision prevail on their guardianship petition going on page eighteen trial courts of the transcript trial court says that simply having physical custody is not enough because there's the added element that each of the drews are required to show that each  moving forward on the issue of the amount of the thieves did they ask or continue as they asked the court to set it for a hearing on the issue on the merits yes three times i  on the motion for sanctions probably drink water and perjury and foul what would the court say you know why you think you made a motion three times what was the court's order on that motion the court really didn't address ruling and found that sanctions were appropriate so i'm not sure the court necessarily ruled one way or the other as far as whether an evidentiary hearing would be required but i think that there's no way that the court would be able to petition because they knew that they were not built to meet standing requirement guardianship statute or they knew that they had filed a petition for an improper purpose and without some sort of prior evidentiary hearing in this case the court simply did not have the were necessary to make the determination that you know there was a false statement and the liens they filed or that the cleans were file for any sort of improper purpose and in ruling on the motions for sanctions again it's that is a question of fact the char the trial court to decide it's not something they can use side based on simply the case of the leading and i would suggest i don't believe anything inconsistent with both of these bothers how the jews obtained his because of these children how long they had had them what sort of the signals they've been making for these children you know this is with the full knowledge or consent of the two fathers in this case those are all facts that the court needed that's not this case where whether or not a parent is baltar at link was physical custody of these children to the drews is a fact that pendant analysis and simply looking at the pleadings you know in this case or even well for i guess the st single one would talk about is the strip dempsey's police that you need to use somehow magic words i'm taking judicial notice of with us in order to take judicial lotus up something or that the court somehow has to work in the dark and not kids sitter or court orders are findings related to other cases involving the same parties in the same issue a had an opportunity to present his case s to any legal argument in writing at that time then when we all had to appear in court to have a hearing on the guardianship case mr dempsey voluntarily dismissed the ca and to assume that that was because the fuel's frivolous or unwinnable is not an outrageous asuncion on the part of the court and there is certainly  certainly is something to be considered it isn't this appeal they have managed to delay this case avoid paying the sanctions for it just seems odd to me that they are doing that the trial court abused its discretion by not having the full evidence for rehearing when mr dempsey did everything he could to a discretion but it did so in a manner that greatly benefited the mr dempsey's clients mr densities argument appears to be that the court should have held off for whatever the jury heard on the motion he had already dismissed a matter that should the mother was why will involved if he she showed a bent and said we need to take over all of the claims that that person abandon this children when he's paying child support when he's doing everything he's supposed to do how is that a good faith argument stiff very straightforward and basic crux of this case can be identified in the text of the petition if one looks at paragraph seven pages see eight and see nine of the record of the the original petition for guardianship one sees the following allegation that the minors parents have voluntarily relinquished physical custody of the minor to the that was an out and out false statement it was signed by mr dempsey along with the other allegations and it was verified by both of the petitioners the record that existed at that time demonstrated that it was false and by record i mean the divorce cases one day before this petition was entered my client filed an emergency petition to modify parenting the parenting situation precisely because that was when he was he learned that the mother was not exercising the rights of the children and we know that the petitioners in this case know that the appellant in this case know that because they including mr dempsey filed a motion to intervene five days later going forward after the drews dismissed their petition voluntarily i filed on behalf of my client a petition for sanctions and in that petition i make reference to this state of affairs that i just recounted to your honor's this is for this is at page c thirty four dollars and onward in there i make specific reference to the divorce case again something that the drews were aware of because they had intervened in that case and which we had hearings in that case between the entry of mr dempsey in that case all the way through to when the petition was in the guardianship case was dismissed and the hearing on sanctions was hel we were delayed in that case because of this case and in the court case in the order from the trial court in the guardianship case ordering sanctions the court made reference to the allegations that are in my petition a petition that the drews for whatever reason never filed a response to and did not substantially contest except for procedural bases at the hearing at no time during the hearing that i can recall did mr dempsey say your honor i think we should stop i move to continue i move for an evidentiary hearing those words were never spoken your honor your honors instead we're being treated to the notion that after the fact i think should have been done differently such as the question of judicial notice your honour's risking about authority i can only go back to the originally stated decisions of the supreme court in determining the evidence and it specifically illinois a rule of evidence to a one talks about the kinds of facts that can be taken when they may be taken an opportunity to be heard subsection east as a party is entitle upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard taking judicial notice i made it clear in my petition for fees that this was a relevant issue and that i wanted it addressed the court picked up on that also i brought it up during the hearing mr lerner brought it up during the hearing and the court very clearly addressed it to say after the fact that somehow the divorce case that mr dempsey entered his appearance on behalf of the drews fort has nothing to do with these proceedings that we should just set set it aside and focus squarely and s and like as if it's in a vacuum on this one hearing as if nothing else had happened is just not appropriate it isn't it isn't the law it isn't the facts and it is i into over twenty years i understand your hono been exposed to your share of her personally over the years but in twenty years i have to say i have not been able to find a better case where reception loquitur applies it's a stance on its face that these let against did not pay attention at best or more likely that they simply ignored the facts of the case that stated neither of these peple least had excepted the seizure of possession of their respective children by the droops they never had custody they took possession and because of the circumstances of my clients and because they didn't want to be in the wild west and seize possession were support supposed to be your honour's are being asked to say that we consented to this and that's a did not address any of the specific fees at the hearing after the hearing was over to my knowledge he did not address those fees he has raised that essentially for the st time on appeal and i believe that position is waived however in addition to that as i've stated mr dempsey and the drews intervened in the divorce case and through that intervention did so on the basis of this guardianship and that action was part of the reason why my client had further delay and was unable to exercise visitation and parenting time with his child and as such to the extent that any such a fee was charged for any other sleep because of the drews intervention and interference with my client's parental rights as occasioned by their filing and their prosecution until they dismissed it of the guardianship friendship case was going to take additional those of those proceedings no cases that's fine the court could have done that had that court made that on the record but still what these parties are arguing is in the  not was based on the fact that the true should be sanction because of what they did in these other divorce cases that's not what this issue was about decisions about whether or not they made some true false statement in their petition for guardianship or the petition a term and the existence of parent or references motion to dismiss based on lack of standing but significant to note that in the context of the guardianship case for the issue standing stands up firm of the fence is not a basis for a motion to dismiss so that's a firm of the fence that either of the judgement any point in the truth or not by a motion to stay the judgment based on appeal beyond your of the parties could have a collective this judgment day point the fact that they haven't exercise their rights to try to collect the judgments for attorney's fees at this point is not anything the