procedure of legally establishing his biological relationship with a child who cannot be convicted under the statute right of the statute has been true amendments but i believe that the compelling interest in the state making this fact of the admitted actions of the defendant a felony crime do not pass constitutional muster under various provisions of our united states and state constitution now this started off as an argument to gender not and looking further to the argument due process my client's fundamental right to have custody care and control of his children or them title him to oppress seadrill due process of the opportunity to be heard if he received a phone call in montana regarding whether or not he would pay child support to his children with a mother who is attempting to obtain benefits i don't believe that's not procedure to determine that he's not a custodial parent and in looking at actions and if an act in the same way would not be subject to prosecution now the statute itself puts two additional requirements being of abandonment of the child and sole ongoing care by the father that can't really be met with my  she had provided sole ongoing care for these children while they were in illinois but only after his objection now as a practitioner of much family law i frequently see behavior from parents that strikes me as unhealthy for the children and probably should be criminal however a lot of these actions whether they are alienating a child saying things to him driving in from place to place frequently are not criminal and in this situation it's i believe that my clients were acting in good faith and that they believed that they were doing what was best for their children and that had you know they'd take a different approach they would not of ended up in the criminal courts but in looking at the homes to the children of brassica my clients were saying there's no custodial work there's no court has stepped in and said she is entitled to the children you are not there was no presumption of a custodial order and to come to illinois and then have it be construed a child support order as a custodial order i think was quite shocking it matter that it was construed that way as part of this criminal statute we're not dealing with a situation where they come to illinois and illinois saying in a family law case jurisdiction over acts of the current little boy where i think the underlying relationship of the parties goes back to nebraska which was defined in the rest of the law these kids have only been brought here for eight months so i think ultimately nebraska establishes the relationship but which i think is relevant to the criminal statute and told there are several different constitutional arguments made and granted the procedure of the case sort of shifted th when my clients came to illinois they came under the viewpoint that these children belong in the presta and that they were children of the breast and that's what they were going to return them and the rest are now i don't believe there's any evidence to establish that the children were harmed through emotional harm either being distraught that they were taken away from the brother or physical harm that they were injured in some way  the behavior is a bit of lee not ideal as many of these family situations are but i believe that the behavior of the mother has not been ideal either if she has committed no crime  their actions in coming here to care for two children that they cared for and i provided for the pass required conviction required to make presumptions that i felt think should accurately apply to them and looking at the facts of war soon one of the results of the presumption is of the because of the child support order granted the mother she could use that to tell an illinois court in a family court proceeding i have caused a to a court has already decided that by granting me support that would be temporary in terms of delve too far into that analysis but i think in this situation you know i think a compelling state interest says a mother has a child you know morse and stated obviously she has a much easier way to prove that she's the mother of the child you know there's a doctor there are witness most likely and the father does not and the father taking the child potentially raises huge issues as far as whether or not it's his child off and in this case michael hyatt had proved that it was his child know it's a family dispute it's not savory or ideal behavior i believe in the fact of either parent whether it's one leaving for the state of illinois without informing the other or somebody coming back and using deception to try to return the children but the issue is it's a felony conviction which is obviously a serious punishment and it's a very nuanced analysis as far as what the orders are what they mean and the effect that they have and so for for those reasons i would ask the court to find that the conviction was unconstitutional and that it be vacated and the charges  acts were committed in illinois as counsel conceded the court did have jurisdiction over these parties and the child abduction statute as utilized in this case and throughout many other cases is constitutional and the state requests this court to affirm as stated within the statute if an adjudication of paternity has been completed such as this case and the father has been assigned support obligations also such as this case a paternity order should for purposes of the section be considered a valid court order granting custody to the mother now the finn it takes issue with the full faith and credit clause he argues that to attribute the custodial designation to the nebraska order requires this court to contradict nebraska law that an order or support is not a custodial of the commission and the best this court must find there was no actual custodial order again for purposes of this criminal child abduction statute the fact that there was this nebraska court order in the  the qualified as a valid court order granting custody care possession to the mother so when the the fence took these children from the mother they committed  the relevance of that again if you look throughout the record throughout all these proceedings the way the parties acted it was clearly the mother who was taking care of these children yes she sometimes waived the support orders but there was many times where their relationship between a mother and a father was on again off again yet alcohol issues i think even deny that he was initially the father of one of these miners the second yes so the fact that she waived these just the state failed to see any relevance and regards to how that would negate these orders because we're gardasil her waiver there was still a valid and forcible court order requiring child support and for purposes of this from a statute again this is not a litigation of the custody it's just stating under this child abduction statute if there's a support order then that's sufficient for the trial court to determine that the mother had custody so when the father or in regards to procedural due process again this was not a family law custody all case this was a criminal case regarding the abduction of these children there was no lack of due process here because there was no actual hearing regarding the custody of the minors and whether that actually changed as justice connect stated this that the mother had custody is for purposes of the statute isn't actually valid enforceable as she actually has custody outside of this from a face it was just that was the what the statute said in order to find these defendants guilty of child abduction which that statement applying that support order to become a custody order was enacted by a legislature in regards to equal protection as stated in our brief contrary to our counsel's claims the court did hold that the child abduction statute was facially constitutional however in mor on they did end up finding it was not constitutional as applied but defended the facts as set forth in the states preferred completely different than the facts in this case and that case the father was a good father he was providing support financially and physically throughout the miners lives unlike this case where the relationship was on again off again and he suffered alcoholism and other serious issues that affect this relationship not only the mother but the and in regards to the waiver of child support the state says that it fails to see the relevance regarding a waiver as that was still a valid forcible court order again the state's position is that the  resided with them you know to a degree my client in mit's that he was not one hundred percent there the entire time but he was there a large portion of the time they were supported by and large by my client's family residing in the house that was owned by my  that whether or not in the legitimate child rightfully belongs to that parent whether but biological relationship is there and it's been established so i believe that this the the analysis is is pretty compelling with morson and i think but for that case we'd probably not be standing here today and ultimately i go back to the amount and looking at family law and how families and the felony conviction in this matter i think i think goes goes to the realm of being on prostitution all for the various reasons the full faith and credit clause as well as the d