court seem to look at not look at what those in the best interest of the child but more what was in the best interests of the parents and more particularly mr hope so i'll be addressing issues the award of joint custody to the parties  with the exception of the third factor that in a relationship and interaction between the child and her parents or anyone else from a significant fact the child and i'm wondering your honour's is how this is even possible what the trial courts say and case law is clear that this factor goes towards the primary caretaker and it's premised on stability and continuity  which is the absence of change and there's no stability and no continuity in a word or the ads where there's been a temporary custody order with one parent or a year with exclusive custody with that parent for six months prior to that and then all of the sudden leap in that schedule to something completely opposite of what it was and saying that stability and continuity can still be achieved just because of the child's young and i don't see how this is possible because what the court is actually saying is that there's no best interests to hamper a child that's a year and a half that she hasn't created a bond with this mother that she then with for the last year and  she hasn't become used to are accustomed to the schedule that she's in right now with her mother and further if you look at the testimony i mean there has been in charge of medical care she's attended every appointment she's taking the child a haircut to take care of her when she's sick her family's been around since the very beginning her parents who she lived with since the child was born in the child has lived with this while they see her on a daily basis and to completely take that away from her is it's not what the man when i was talking about interaction or relationship if you're just switching that around and that's goes over into the fourth factor which is the child's adjustment to homeschooling community  true when the child has developed markets remarkably well and that's exactly what's going on here just child all the testimony states this child is so smart she's so well behaved it's because of of her environment with her mother in miss hot mr hudson mother even sad that maria must be doing something right because my granddaughter's incredibly happy and i'm in she must be reversed all but i don't think that they were considered that event isn't this hold of the child as she will be two in november  i said not sure how that's now but it does say that children's rights are at substantial benefits from the close personal relationship with the same sex parents and they look for a model i'm not trying to say that because a child young that she should be with the mother i'm just saying that the mother seems to acknowledge that she's not a boy she doesn't want to sit and watch sports with him on a sunday watch football every day although i realize that that maybe she will when she gets older but as it as a young girl she needs to be active and doing more appropriate things and have a role model like her mother to look to and that's more of where i was getting it based on all of the information that was given to her that she didn't think it was an issue and your honor i don't believe it's an issue either she is here on this deferred action the only way she can be deported is if she commit some felonous action which that seems to be the case with even in america even mr kopp where he could kill someone in a car accident and have to go to jail and would have the same a fact as they're going to be  was still enough so your honor i would say that i know there is conflicting testimony on whether the marijuana you were whether he was actually high once he got home to your first child i would say that almost doesn't matter he smoked marijuana the same evening he knew he was going to come home and care for his child that just shows his decision making ability right there and that he's caring more about himself where was the pro court order favor of these and once the parties can show when and usual ability to cooperate these two they can't decide whether they've made agreements or not they can't decide  i can even imagine they would be able to decide whether i was a male or female that's how how different these two are and they obviously haven't shown an ability to work together i counsel stated in his brief multiple times that we've had to come back to work or attorneys have to be called for different issues and this is pretty much showing that these two cannot get along and also the geographic distance between the parties doesn't lend itself to a joint custody order the parties i mean there's no way that there's going to be a miracle around health care providers and playmates and environments these two have completely conflicting environments in it that goes into altering originating visitation schedule were this child lives a different life from week to week and that is not appropriate for a young child and further  joint custody orders are meant to maximize the involvement of one of the parents in the child's life and this doesn't do that at all in fact it gives mr unbridled decisionmaking where he can make any decision if want he wants as long as he doesn't and reasonably permanent existence for the child and they say they're highly disfavored and last the child is old enough to cope with these type of arrangements which this child is a year and a half almost two years old she's not old enough to understand that i'm going to be with this parent for this long and then another parent for this long and then and then be able to reconcile those two things i know i'll be going back to my mother in a classroom with in the hacker case is particularly on point where the kids were being rotated week to week and of course said that the court reversed it because of the age of the children were two or three five and seven at the time which isn't exactly what the cases here are a very young child who just can't understand and comprehend this type of schedule hucks resources are not are not limited although he does now work he receives substantial gifts from his family and his father and himself even testified that this is it's on an ad as needed basis and right now he's living and living the life of a fully employed adult and also the guidelines will create a one off for the custodial parent this isn't the case here either because they sample that was given by the court with two doctors that are making substantial income and are financially stable to support the child on their own and that award a twenty percent drop house i'm sorry twenty percent child support would be sixty to seventy thousand a year and the two reasons that the trial court heard mr hobbs status as a college student which isn't based and in wa and his independent contributions to the child but that doesn't that doesn't make sense either because there was no testimony that he had any more independent contributions to the child then any other not historical parent if we're allowing however your honour's the case on the testimony doesn't make this an uphill battle but makes a reversal necessary and we've already seen the emotional facts that being away from operation mother has cost looked at the judge's opinion overall she made a selection balancing factors six of two that she specifically referred to and in essence said that she believes that the environment that mr above provides is a times which i guess you call it straight point custody where you know there's there's constant mediation and then somebody running to court because they couldn't agree or anything this judge said hey if these people discuss this and he can't ignore this then what's going to happen is th did it not serve the child's best interest what it did do is it keeps moms in put on major decisions now this all ends as far as i don't have a physical custody time right now still talking about decision making visit on weekends and you know honestly i don't care what you think or is this enables her to have him put in what she thinks is best child it actually hopefully will work parents to cooperate a little bit i think the move effects i think that are more apparent in this record different than just were they living in one place versus the other traveling back and forth this started out for the first six to eight weeks of a little girl's life when my clients  there were a number of legal proceedings back and forth moving to dismiss it moving to transfer him and during that entire time period she would let him visit he drove to chicago she said come up visit throwbacks there's a lot instability  appear no visit unless he signed an agreement that says she gets sole custody when he wouldn't sign that and we had to come to court for specific way then when we came here then any change in that visitation we had to go to court to do one time even for extended time we had to go to court and basically you know present to the court we want extended time in the summer and then carve out an exception  reader during the time that she has them she lives with her parents who work they work late at night so early afternoon she two nights a week goes to class so there's a lot of shifting back and forth with this child from in each home but in my client's home she has become integrated in with the grandparents with him with his friends the testimony is quite strong from the friends that come in from the family members to come in and from his brother who even arranges to come home when he has visitation so she knows to springfield you know she knows extended family here she's been integrated into this family and one and a half which is what she was when the judge looked at this picture she was sane with this age of a child you don't have the normal things like you having happen all the other ones where they've been going to school for a while where they've been as a doctor for a while we're going to shift back and forth and those type of things at that point in time under the judge's ruling it switches to what you would call a traditional every other weekend visitation arrangement so the question is is when she allows the mother to have an every other week arrangement during these first year and a half period of time maybe two years at the outside to paint but i slice it is that bad for this child as opposed to starting now giving her every other week because in essence that's what the court decided it's going to happen when the child gets to for lack of a better term instructional age and i don't believe that you that the evidence supports it's not she's bonded here she's bonded to the people that are here not say she's not bonded to her mom and not bonded to her grandparents and she will but she is like a lot of kids they will live in two different worlds so this just balanced the two worlds one of the things that i think was considered it wasn't controlling was the fact that the world that her mom lives in is somewhat unstable just because of the situation with her u s citizenship she's here and has the ability to drive now as  not be deported now because of a criminal or presidential declaration if the next president rescinds that then she's back in the same type of question legally of where she is was that issue for the trial while the judge did the trial just did not say that it was control and if you look at her i believe from mine which is exactly it wasn't a controlling factor but it has to be integrated into that and  i mentioned that in my in my argument they say that the culture is one of it i don't want to totally does it diminish it but they are here under a cloud of secrecy to some extent they can't be open mike just like my client and his family found out she couldn't go on a trip to the caribbean because she can't get out of this out of the country because she can't get back they didn't know that they just said look we have an ability to go on and for one of june the baby come in became a big problem simple things like that you know for a while she couldn't drive legally and she and her father drove claims on a permit i don't know how oval code but he doesn't have legally the right to drive yet he drives a number of times before she gets her license through the exchange it's just a cultural way of wife of not owning up to the out but you know that is not like the cases that extend for four years and two and a half years in that situation and i think there's a big difference smaller or younger a child length of time amount of time my own and so i don't think that you know this lady little lady i'm sorry as loom over place and there's there's tremendous testimony as to her interaction and her development of relationships here and her demeanor here and her ability to have a very good environment here and the times she has here she has ties both pla more regular basis involved with there's no psychological evidence or any other evidence to prove steps not wholesome for this child but for the shot at the present  less or standers and lesser opinions now only from the sources that i say i'm not a psychologist and don't intend to try and be one and or to represent exactly how you know in a psychologist so to some extent the court has a testimony of the parent limited testimony of a father person so people from different angles different viewpoints up serving extended rogers to the u of pain college expenses and i think that's a that's our process people i don't believe that that was wrecked extension and i don't think that the numbers correct and i've outlined that in my written arguments they include numbers they're not supportable by the record but more importantly is the concept that if a parent pays for college situation is for well known as forty six thousand a year of the anderson case and long after that thousands of dollars and you have actual cash that allowed them to build up the wealth and that's part of what the supreme court your i'd like to touch briefly on the child support issue and i agree with you in terms of whether he does or does not work for his father  sure's running errands that's what we call a courier at our office but i don't know perhaps it's different and so i i would pose that argument that he does work but if not the rogers core does support these guests that he's receiving as income because it even says the value of goods and services received by an individual in a given period of time that's exactly what he is receiving from his father it doesn't matter how he's using it if you look at him as bank records were one occasion it shows about a thousand dollars coming out as perhaps a tuition payment but it seems like before when he went in chicago to school his dad was a painter rectally so it's kind of if you whether he is receiving whether his father's painted directly or whether he is painted and regardless of that he is having the money put into his account roughly twelve hundred dollars a month to spend on whatever he pleases and this can be an accumulation of wealth if he doesn't spend it on going out to eat all the time or go to the movies or whatever the case may be in your honour's the legislature actually addressed this when i talked about that it allows deductions for expenditures for repayment of debt that represent reasonable and necessary expenses expenses for the production of income this is not a  he's never having to pay back his father and it is just not what the courts were for with the legislation or was considering when it was talking about when it was considering this  anything they can agree and he talks about the simulation and how the child has is now accustomed to his life or her life in springfield what the testimony of the parties was is that they see her on a very infrequent basis the friends the family the brother of mr hub comes home once a month he says he sees mr hope with the child once a month the friends about every other weekend i mean  i would agree that there were about six or seven witnesses but your honour's i would say that they didn't really say anything i obviously they're going to say oh they have a great relationship but it wasn't anything notable and these people they say the parents we try to see the child when she's home the brother i try to get home when she's there we all try to do things i try to work out every day i  but what is that compared to a relationship that's been every day since the child was born with the exception of the eight days of visitation a month that mr