two point seven which deals with parenting time not six o two point five and i want both sections are similar there are now some similar factors to consider they are different sections for a reason and they do have a lot of differences in the truck or bill to analyze the case that particular part of the kids under the correct portion of the law oh in life in the factors used with the facts presented at trial are the and four of them favor my client miranda i don't want to belabor the ones that favor neither because my time is limited but there's a couple things i do want to bring to the court's attention now with regard to the mental and physical health of to using marijuana while pregnant once and she had had postpartum depression which was treated and she went and sought treatment for it and actually the trucker should not have considered those factors because the relationship between miranda and the minor child were affected negatively by the fact that miranda smoked marijuana once was pregnant and that she had postpartum depression that was being treated on the order of protection happened before the first temporary order and it was tough testified that he got that word protection basically to get a leg up in the family case which the family case that he knew was coming and eventually the order of protection while he was granted emergency order of protection he dismissed the action once a temporary order was interviewing the family father and stepmother so it wasn't like special supervision with adults or somebody not familiar to the child somebody outside of the family it was just her step mother and father and after not seeing your child for a month would be  anything to be able to see their daughter a supervision i'm believe it lasted about four months three months no your honor actually there was a temporary another faded in the case but mass search that you're referencing affected the child's relationship with my client and additionally there was testimony that when my client would receive the minor child on saturday that the child was happy and excited to see her mother which means any of that negativity that was brought about my client had not affected the parent child relationship i'm your honor i believe that it may have been somewhat of a private issue pride on behalf of the stepmother to she had been listening to the negativity from self for so long and maybe started to believe in herself and she felt that she had wanted to appear as if everything was ok she had this need to express hersel that's the only thing i can think of stay with the favorites and leave the minor child with marina so they had that they did have a good relationship we can't we can't deny that well there really wasn't the only evidence of such family being supportive was his mother his mother testified that where there was testimony that the mother would see the minor child pretty four times a week the mother was providing he used the term babysitting services because of her grandchild but was watching the minor child on saturdays but other than that there was there was no evidence presented as to the closeness of such family with the minor child but however for of another pair it seems to me that the opposite conclusion would be clearly apparent and it would be against the manifest weight of the other it's especially considering one the proper did even analyze under the right statute and to some of the provisions of the trial court ruled upon lightfoot with regard to the parenting time of day the trial court said that tough trying to find which i particularly section oh the interaction and relationship between the trial parties and other people that would affect the best interests of the child the court completely ignored the relationship between the child and the grandparents and grandparents would be other people that effect the best interests of the child so i think while i agree with it's not you know check and balance and we have the scale and the way that i think if you look at the whole picture the fact that the majority of the factors spoken six o two point five and six o two point seven the ones i favor either party favor of miranda and as moving fifty mile know which actually created the oh it's a whole nother story i like i actually like the new statue because it used to be if you lived in metropolis you could move to paducah but you could move to chicago and that really  sense but the adjustment the child's adjustment to home school and community sets mother testified that the minor child was established in jackson county the mother child went to school in jackson county both parties were given permission to enroll the minor child in a pre k program both of them did however marine was the only one that actually had the child go to school while and while the child was in her physical presence to be you well said did not have the child actually go to school is the excuse for that is well it was a full time pre k program also was the one that for the minor child was attending with miranda but miranda took it a step further contact at the pre k program and made arrangements for the minor time minor child to a ten on a part time basis the child's doctor's counselor school friends all in the jackson county area so she was more established with her mother than she was with her father in the trial court just use the bases to rule that that particular factor in such favor oh well he bought a house oh he bought a house on the parties lived there for a matter of months before they separated how is that more stable than having all of her school doctors and everything in one particular area oh oh the with regard to parenting time oh like i said a lot of the factors are the same one thing i did want to bring to the court's attention actually i'm sorry has to do more with the allocation of parental responsibility decision making but it can the court can look at this as well it with regard to parenting time the  facilitation and encouragement of a relationship with the other parent both parties were allowing electronic contact yes and that's good however marine was the only one reaching out further she would initiate she would send pictures of the minor child doing things while with her two cents she was taking it a step further and that's really that in all things she was taking it one step further if you look at the two statutes they are substantially dissimilar and when the drug court really took a look at analyzing the the factors it really came down to the two primary factors and i think one of the things that that was noted in the court's order and i should have counted them because they kept coming up almost paragraph after paragraph was the word stability this judge went i want out of this wa continue to talk about stability and basically what the court focused on was was was to areas that are set forth in both six zero two five and six zero two point seven one of them doing the child adjustment to home school and community and then the other one dealing with the mental and physical health of all individuals involved and with the guards to the adjustment to home schooling community i think what the court was trying to determine at that time of the trial was what was what was taking place at that time not that the history didn't matter but what was what could the court see has what was happening  what could the court and to supinate would be the stability of the child in the future and to be real blot there was a distinct difference between mom and dad in this case that they did buy a house and flo it was a place where he had grew up he had no intention of moving it was living there he was surrounded by family his mother was actively involved in taking care of the child on the flip side of it you had mom corrections he was headed at a basic work schedule and have much better routine availability for the child in terms of disability  it was brought up about well at that time he did take that six weeks typically it's a two week type of situation well there interaction with the family with the child in the family is important the mother pardon the testimony was primarily involving the i don't blame you i don't disagree with you to be frank with you about the trial record one of the concerns i had when i reviewed the trial record because i wasn't part of the trial itself was quite frankly i'm both sides the lack of evidence that i quite frankly thought could have been submitted on both sides the court was provided a record and they had a day long trial but the court was provided evidence that it end up being the record in front of your honor's today the court had to use the evidence that was submitted at that time to try to determine all right here's  record i've got on my going to rule on this and made a decision based upon the record that was submitted so when your honor talks about you know where was the evidence for this or if evidence for that  concerning the ability to communicate with one another and and discuss things better where was that evidence there wasn't a lot you were limited to court truck court was limited in scope in terms of the evidence that was earlier was the communication between the stepmother and the paternal grandmother and why was that important i think it was important in the court because it confirms some of the evidence that was provided earlier in the trial when mom and dad are both testifying and there's a lot of he said she said stuff that is talking about how the mother was acting overtly yelling cussing in very angry all the time and you could take up or a grain of salt until you get to that particular exhibit detailed things that that was said that caused concerns and one of those concerns that this goes to the mental health of the mother and that has that goes hand in hand with i think what ju harping on was the stability and in that e mail or in that communication she even the one of the things that was said was that the mother just hadn't i guess in  about her home life with the father and and in part with the stepmother and i think the what the stepmother was initially doing was trying to life that the that he is the daughter heading back to one of the first things that she says in that in that communication is that how the mother always said that she had terrible home  the fact that she was saying she did have a big shot child i think but i think again this comes down to the issue of stability the record that's before the court when the court had to make a decision on this and when you look at the look at just the issues that this mother was going through had been going through continued to go go through and then as i've mentioned seems to me on the eve of trial everything is great i think the court had determined some credibility and the court in this case gave a much more credibility to to the father and i think have the right to determine that produced credibility issues  i'm i just i disagree with that i think he did consider it i think when he when he goes when he goes factor by factor in his order he's going through and saying ok i'm reviewing this factor record before me i do not see where this favors either side that's how he's that's ho the one thing i'm going to give one the one of the things i want to say about this order was that i think the court you can make i think the court can make comments like that but i think when you look at the overall order itself the focus was still on father has at this time to offer the child what's the situation the mother has at this time to to you know with regards to the child whether it's don't need the home life whether it's time a bit of ability what happens then the court also goes into analysis concerning the mental health and the issues that the that the mother had gone through and quite frankly may still been going through and the court has to decide i think the court said in its order that the evidence at that point there was some drug use that was much more it was in fact it was more recent there was like it was much more recent i'm sorry i think when you take a look at the history of this they went through a time where there was the order of protection for a period of time supervision there was all of the it was the the issues concerning how the mother had figured the child at times how they dry issues concerning their relationship and i say would they the mother in the father and you have to understand that to cooperate and get communicate with one another goes well beyond just sitting here and having a conversation that has to include somebody being able to make good decisions that have had other side that had several issues going on you can debate whether or not it was more recent or not more recent but there was a history here history lesson being given to the judge about where the mother was in terms of some of her whether it's  motional problems or mental problems you got to be able to have that communication if you don't have personal responsibility in terms of your own actions your own behavior your own attitudes then how come out was the court going to trust that individual to be able to hound to make good decisions with regards to the child agree that there could have and more brought on behalf of miranda and perhaps on behalf of south as well but we are limited to the record so let's focus on the record with regard to you know just can't you get it right on the head with regard to the stability and he's going for the national guard it is a daughter of a back her and i'm not attacking his service to our country i think it is admirable that he does that however the focus is what's in the best interest of hazel and not such service in the national guard and stability you know well my at you know the opposing counsel mentions you know the court too because it's not in the record the only thing that's in the record about what he does with his daughter is he goes to the gym and the daughter goes to the babysitting service of the gym and he's at the gym three or four days a week like that's the only evidence of what so does with this daughter with regard to miranda what she does with the minor child is art projects they go for walks they spend time with them farm animals on the bigger property so there is more evidence as to that's actually what we're asking for joint allocation parental responsibilities and the parties have demonstrated that they can jointly parent the minor trial because after when a temporary order was entered in june of two thousand and sixteen until the courts order in january there were a couple of loopholes and those of us who practice family law know people like to take advantage of loopholes one of them being miranda's parenting time was to start saturday morning well there is no specific time just a saturday morning and there was never anything before the trial court that the parties were unable to work on a specific time together for miranda to start exercising for parenting time additionally the temporary order said that the minor child was to be retrieved from her daycare inherent  by stuff and when she started attending daycare in carbondale they the parties were able to work together obviously because there was never anything brought before the trial court that suggested that the trial court had to intervene so the parties are able to work together in the yes i did and if you disagree with me that you can then i support her remanded back down to clay county with regard to parent