specifically the older child we've given them for some authority with regard to strong preferences of a mature child and how the court should pay close attention to that when they're making this decision we understand it's our decision we also understand susan is one to say there is a change in circumstances and then also to look at the necessity of changing custody if the first hurdle is as well and in this case this child who was the most mature child has been giving a preference to a number of people not just to one person or to his mom or to maybe his family members he has been telling his psychologist for over four years and his preference has been growing stronger and stronger as has his maturity in fact his psychologist told the court in his testimony that he was mature enough to make this statement to the court he was mature enough to understand his consequences and it was his independent action not something that someone else was in influencing him to do not only did he that preference known to myself his mom to step mom to people that were i guess acquaintances of the family to his answers uncles this is something that he would tell everyone not only did he do that but his sister claire did that she told the psychologist on two occasions that he had occasions to meet with her but that was her preference she told her grandparents with whom she visited for a number of years in their home consistently that that's what she would like to do in fact she even went with her grandma shortly before the hearings when the last hearings and little handle asking god to please let her go live with them on the little guys will but it is also growing stronger and that in combination with the other changes and circumstances we believe are sufficient for the court find there was a change in circumstances for children and those other changed circumstances being  circumstances or a number of them first of all mr saying when a ryan is we were virtually in our grief has created an environment of exclusion or hostility towards the mother since the time of the last ruling of april of eleven which was our our time forward based upon the poor through and there are several areas that business has been shown in the first of all at events public events we gave the corps at least five instances of where he has acted in appropriately towards the mother one of them was where the little girl while a came over and this was in may of thirteen a little girl while it came over sat on march of two thousand and thirteen at a basketball game and this is the one reason you know my client took a picture of her little girl trying the way they come over for a few minutes you have to come back in fall of two thousand and eleven that was a big incident in that a football game he comes over and starts accusing my client being a drunk a drunk driver the terrible mother that nobody likes you all in front of the kids this isn't lost on the children and this we gave the court five examples of those i think i've covered most of them but i wrote them down may of two thousand and twelve you're sitting too close to me if you get if you don't move i'm  police one time at the end of the game which was in may it comes over and she's you're sitting too close to me she says there's a minute left in the game there's nowhere else to sit and move as soon as i can he says if you don't leave and this happened about two weeks after she had filed for a petition for change of custody he called the police honor a lotion she was intoxicated headed at the child's baseball game and the evidence shows intoxication and he called the police on their directly contrary to what dr heather and said should have occurred he said you don't call the police up unless there's some serious situation so he did that right after a petition changing custody took place that's the only time he called the police on her the other area that he has sought to exclude the mother from is the area of schooling tutoring education she was not even list of even though in april of two thousand and love he was directed to list her as a parent at the school no he didn't do it when she goes in october of two thousand and eleven to go to a parent teacher conference she has to bring a court order so that she can even have a parent teacher conference if she's never been listed as a parent even with the parents who are who the teachers should find out all of that then they have a skyward program which  courts not familiar with what bet is an internet program where it allows a parent to contact school good school information interact with teachers and that was a program that was established at the charity schools my client had never been informed about it was never listed as a parent about and then what happened was in july of twelve after a petition filed suddenly she said to the sky we're program again something that only megan bryant's wife now girlfriend then choked her and if you look at our exhibit fifty four you'll see the marks on the child's neck this occurred while it was discovered at the grandparents home in petersburg and what she did is they contacted a teacher and said should we contacted department they reference they said yes go ahead and do that so she did of that evidence was available and all those people testified about it before just judge trumper and as far as the second time she contacted you see if that involved an incident where there was a trip to arkansas the little boy got in an argument with his dad and a step mom i guess in trip back the father in his brief says i never hit him but you know if you look at our  and that note got to the school the school first saw it and said you shouldn't be taking these children's clothes off and videotaping them before they go and when they come back and that's was turned in my client didn't do that and everybody acknowledges that the school did that but somehow she's getting the credit for the other time that the best that they claim my client was associated with was they claim there was a claim against the grandmother well when the videotaping incident came up somebody had to watch the kids while they were investigating my client objected to it being the grandmother because there was some conduct where she was allowing herself to be seen naked by j but i want to go back to the school issue my client was very concerned about her son's grades especially j s was a d h two things about that ryan did not give the child his medication after july eleventh and specifically in the medical testimony from terri stevens the medical records said in july eleventh if you start showing signs which are homework problems here contested and so the trial court of course has to judge credibility and for example with the grades there is evidence that the child actually told the counselor i'm getting my grades slip on purpose so that my dad he was having difficulty with the d a s office he would bring them up they allowed them a system where they can make up their work and that's a factual statement as to what is actually occurring with the child he needed that and that's what we're same and that's those are facts that we think the courts should have paid more attention to the fact that he would not allow he would exclude my client from information he didn't tell her about girl scouts initially didn't tell her about a baseball team initially didn't didn't tell her about the first child's or a second type of players first communion until three days before didn't tell him about will's first meaning meeting do is when you review all of this to take that into consideration one of the other things that is i think not appreciated by the court and  really i guess didn't pay enough attention to the trial court is his attitude towards my clients extra time show everything changes when a petition is fine it's kind of like we clean up our act because now we're going to court prior to that hey somebody at work is having a birthday party here it's go you can even come bring your family and do it he acts in the company of children hostile to the mother everyone is the he was players of first communion in fact the church's family should sit near the child before she goes up for the commune when claire go ahead or communion that's fine kids situation in the studio parent situation but when getting over that looking at the two situations is my client's home is a stable environment where the children are healthy and happy and where they don't have con for increase in the mail at the time it was not it was filed in two thousand and twelve never notice stuff right so it's still pending tech was pending but it's never been noticed stuff there's also no evidence that there was an increase or a difference between what she was argument we didn't have a hearing on that but i thought there was evidence presented no there was not there were those present and there was evidence presented as to whether or not my client work for five minutes in october of two thousand were there  there no transcript unfortunately there was no report but that was a conference for argument on motion the judge said come on up and ask her some questions about why she couldn't put her child in daycare it because of child support again could you just clarify in terms of the procedure utilized was there evidence presented and is there a transcript in the record of the here and were evidence was presented thank you i'm  question i was in the clear that up to get that off my plate as well judged mr titus cracked the motion increase child support was filed in june of two thousand and twelve the issue was specifically reserved in the august thirty first two thousand and twelve hearing in terms of notice of hearings when we went to trial for the first time on august on april twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen mr stockton of iowa notices hearing as to his motion to modify custody we just filed pretrial memorandums and the briefs are pretty clear as to what my pretrial memorandum spoke to so my answer to your question is that the financial evidence was presented through our nine days of trial tax returns were presented bank account records were birth presented the parties employment history were all presented in trial and when judge trampers ruling came out in september of two thousand and fourteen it indicated that mr scott and i were to provide lpn salaries so that the court could set child support at a thirty two percent of miss jamison's net income and at that time marcy then filed a motion that her due process rights were violated subsequent to that filing the court said the court's position was we're on notice we all know we're here for child support this was part and parcel of the whole nine days of trial we were hearing that issue as well but if you feel as though you haven't had a theory let's have a hearing right now on october twenty fifth two thousand and fourteen there is no such transcript as to that hearing i disagree with the assertion that it was only five minutes long there was no motion to continue by mr scott there was no motion to leave proofs open there was no indication that he hadn't had that he group prepared to go at that time to trump or said if you want to testify and present evidence we can do it now everyone agreed and marcy did get up and testify as to her position as to why she could not work and that that hearing is reference trampers order but there is no transcript that addresses that specifically but as to the financial position of the parties our position is that was all for him taint within the nine days of trial on the hearing on all issues that were pending at the time right has played defense this entire time he was awarded custody of the four children when they were six four in three sixty nine six four and three in september of two thousand and nine since that time he truly has play defense in a war waged in our from our position against marci his marci agreed in on april fourth two thousand and eleven to custody be in place to try him and the record is clear that  and i bring this up as we talk a lot about preference the record record is clear that the children in up until the time that jacob testified in december of fourteen january fifteenth had no idea that their mom ever agree to their custody being placed with mine it clear that jacob had no idea and then after she agrees in april of two thousand and eleven to custody being placed with ryan she again agrees and withdraw from motion in august of two thousand and twelve and she agrees again at that time despite all the wrongs that she thinks is are happening she agrees again august thirty first two thousand and twelve that custody is properly placed in to remain with ryan when we look at preference caseless clear that we have to look at is preference based on the best interests of the child you can't just say hey kid where do you want to live and put the kid where they want to live you have to look at is that preference based on good factors and here the trial  after many many days of trial found it is not a take of specificity but the suggestion that the trial court didn't hear jake's preference or didn't hear players preference is misguided because marcy has gone from two court orders where she agreed to two out of fourteen nights every other weekend from friday at six to sundays six to now she has five out of fourteen overnights with three younger children and seven out of fourteen overnights with  so the suggestion that the court didn't hear that shakeup wanted more time with his mom is misguided that coupled with jacobs mind made up doc in in the reply brief marcy states that dr heather two never said jacob had his mind made up if you go back to volume twenty five you'll see dr heather ten said yes jacob suffers from mind made up he since two thousand and nine has viewed his mother is flawless she has no flaws she is he's champion for the the wrongs that were done to her and marcy testified the kids know i drink the kids know i messed up she herself testified they did not know i agreed through their custody being placed with ryan so the court having that knowledge looked at looked at that fact when considering that custody was properly placed to try and the court also had the strong testimony of dr heather to indicated its concern with jake up in ryan's relationship if custody was place act so we have this hearing through spring of two thousand and fourteen we have the child support issue that arises we have been hearing in october and i took less than a month after the court issues its ruling in september two thousand and fourteen we have new motions alleging abuse new verified petition for protection we need more hearings the court clearly having heard enough that he wants the court to hear more about this alleged event that occurred in october two thousand and fourteen at ryan's house living with ryan and that goes all the way back to december of two thousand and eleven marsi agrees in april of two thousand and eleven to custody being placed with ryan yet months later she text message shake up i'm doing everything i can i promise i'll get you guys back and that's been the mindset when it comes to preference for these children going forward mr scott indicated that everyone they tell everyone that they want to live with their mom that's accurate not one teacher testified that jacob or claire had ever told them that they wanted to live with marcy versus ryan not one neighbor came forward and testified that the children told them that they wanted to live with their mom and not their dad so with respect to who claire and jacob were giving their preference to i think the court this court should take that into a large account because it's not it is marcy and her family members and again marcy is the be the person in their eyes who has been wrong despite the court having increased substantially her custodial time the other issues i wanted to address with respect to school the school z z o y n register there's the children at chatham with a paper application marcy wasn't there of course she she presented this or that he didn't list her as a parent that that's not accurate she's always been listed as a parent in fact august of two thousand and twelve order specifically says marcy is in charge of her own self and she's in charge of getting on sky signing herself up why why that would be ryan's responsibility baffles me i'm not sure why they point the finger at him with respect to that but he's always kept her apprised if you look at pages fifty six through fifty eight of our grief and numerous numerous emails where ryan's emailing at first he would email dad because he believed that was the person he was supposed to be in communication with but subsequent to that marcy will has this baseball has that football game this events coming up that events coming out and the email kit communication back from marcy is don't use this g mail account use this yahoo account don't use that yahoo account now i'm using this female a cow making it very difficult at all times for ryan to communicate with her another example of these burdens and hurdles that ryan is constantly force to jump over for marci is this extra time parents aren't required to give extra time certainly we all hope that everyone lives in a world where if you have you have a family birthday party on mom's side and the kids are with dad you can work together and go to mom's site but writes allowed to make plans and allowed to have event scheduled during his the social time and the fact that he did that is no reason to point any there with him on the flipside there were times that ryan was dropping off the kids early to specific times and marcy holds her neighbors in to testify that she wasn't home she didn't know the kids were coming early and one wants to point ryan in a bad light for bringing the kids early so anything ryan ever does always is used against him and that's truly how he's had unfortunately to parent these kids since own on videotape is another prime example  has agreed to these allegation of bruises and if and i'm certain this court has looked at that exhibit those are childhood bruises that happen every day if we if we there's nothing abnormal or major about the bruises on the ale j's opinion is very clear that they could have easily come from a by bicycle strapped from her home and or from we also had interviews pictures of viola doing to mass tics around that time where she could have hit the bar nothing atypical about those bruises on my lisnek but what i am so now in a position where his girlfriend megan had been out of the home for ninety days because of the initial finding of abuse and so he is and he is absolutely worried about any scratch any bruise that arises on these kids his he is terrified as to what who will be contacted what will happen next so when d c fs just to him that he videotaped them with their clothes on there was never any videotaping with their clothes off off but with their clothes now ryan's at fault for following in asking marcy to can follow that court order it's baffling to me how how he can literally do nothing right when it comes to parenting these kids on the plus side every all of this we do have four as a court as search term for points how talented beautiful very well adjusted children and the wall is written such that that stability should not be taken from these kids  after the birth of these four children she certainly has made life changes and again whether or not there were agreements prior to the temporary hearing as to increase custodial time the court will never know that because those are settlement hearing because we couldn't reach an agreement as to sort of periods and the court after hearing just from r c you will the records clear that my client never got an opportunity to testify in late two thousand and thirteen gave marci additional time alternating wednesdays after school until i think five thirty so from zero in till november of thirteen she had alternating weekend visitation in november thirteen we had it in an alternating wednesday and then in september fourteen when the court when judge trumper made her ruling we went to five out of fourteen for the three younger children and seven out of fourteen for take up so our contention is the court did hear the children and that their preferences were taken into consideration i think that the amount of time marcy has spent with these children also in some respects speaks to their preference for from zero nine until essentially september fourteenth she got to be a fun parent she got to have them on the it she testified a lot to chores and different routines and different things that she had her home but we all know that's not required on the weekends ryan from zero nine to tell me how and continues to do so has been the parent that gets kids up every day for school has been the parent that make sure that their lunches are ready has been the parent that nature is at the girls hair is done and that the girls are dressed hasn't been the parent to sign them up fractured particulars and in terms of signing them up pressure curricular school scouts is again just another prime example ryan talks in passing to the girl scout leader and says hey yeah claire might be interested mentions this to her doesn't sign or gets the pamphlet moves on the next thing you know there's an allegation that ryan has signed you up and has consulted with marcy  has sole custody quite frankly he can sign these kids up for whatever you want he didn't do so he talked to the girl scout leader and when he signed her up he led marcy no less than marcy is parent so it's all perception and it's it's how these little incidents are packaged to this court and a review of the records reveals that ryan truly is doing everything he can to fall of a court order to include marcy in their lives he went to the honeymoon after getting married in october thirteenth and i'm certain that mr well that's after we filed our petition quite frankly he doesn't really if he has custodial time he likes he enjoys being with these kids his neighbors testify that all the time he's out with the kids he's at the local y m c a in the west side in the pool one neighbor testify that she sees and they're all four kids had climbing on him hanging on him playing in the pool together he doesn't have a lot of need for extra alternative care for these kids but when he did because he was going on a honeymoon who did he call he called marcy another incident again agh that we just had to defend constantly is this there was a water ski tournaments on lake petersburg and nature right are take a kid get there so he could wash out with his grandparents he's allowed to make plans during his time to the extent possible he's given marci additional time soups and hoops is another one they made a big deal about the children not being able to go to see some hoops when the children's aunt testified she hadn't had it in the last year and maybe even two years so anything negative that ryan has done has been presented to the trial court the trial court has found that it did not meet the burden of stand for change in circumstances and that's because there's not been by clear and convincing evidence that anything with respect to these children's lives or to ryan slice has changed with respect to their preference just as here is you asked if it's grown stronger and mr scott said yes quite frankly that record doesn't reflect that jacob's preference to live with his dad is like a roller coaster and if you carefully review dr heather's notes you'll see that after a custody order enters jacob settles he calms down he gets into the rhythm he's good and then he to what's going on and he's taken in and his own emotions and his preferences i would suggest of this court fall over coasts the roller coaster of what has been the life of these parties  medication no concern with lack of treatment of jacobs a d h the medication i write she said she absolutely had no concerns as to how ryan is a minister in the medicine and no concerns that jacob wasn't given it regularly and does he does take it even when court proceedings are going on yet he probably does because it is a very difficult time for him these children have been misled as to the role of the child representative these children have been attempted to be subpoenaed at home they are they have been taken to howard's hellman's office out by their non custodial parent without direction of a court they've basically been given license to do what they want to ryan's house and to keep journals and list of everything bad ryan and megan do and that all comes up at the time of trial but when we're not in court and there's not a battle owing on these are happy well adjusted kids who stability and adjustment to their current home where they've lived since two thousand and eleven where they've lived with ryan and megan where ryan's maintain a job where he supports these children up until september fourteen three hundred dollars a month he supports them completely and he's done so very well and as a as a trump or does he should be commended for how he has this was because of problems in his relationship with the child and problems in the child relationship with this wife these are not problems created by my use of problems in that home and the person who is parent doesn't even realize why the child is going to counseling with regard to dr had he never diagnosed my client or the child when the child is mind made up he says he thinks he may have it in him but he never never diagnosed that and in our brief we refer you to the pages of his testimony where he said that this changing custody may actually help his relationship with his day may actually be a benefit there's also a statement that he makes that i think is important and it's also ties into if you remember the biker bar face i think i remember it was i was young back then but if they read in the white box case with it one of the things that the court said sometimes kids just know because they live in the environment that you and i are looking at it from all different sizes and professionals are looking at but sometimes kids just not and one of the things that dr henderson said is hate this guy's feelings and this guy's strong feelings can be because of his experiences it just might be because what he you know so we can ignore this child it's ok you're fifteen got it out for three more years what's going to happen then we did nor do your relationship isn't do with your parents you're going to counseling which in isn't helping  this rollercoaster his preferences have changed they've done strong and it's not like there are times that he gets along better with his day then an event happens he's called a liar by his dad even really upset about that in the testimony is clear from dr heather to him that he's upset about that but his dad doesn't bother to understand they're calling him a liar affects his relationship he's fallen a evidence that my client would engage in those activities their evidence is to the contrary that she contacts him she tries to interact with she's not you know she's not trying to keep these kids from him that's not what's going on i point out what i known near the end of my time almost done but one of the things that the council mentioned is that my client agreed to the custody in two thousand  twelve her attorney devised through that she could be serious and dangerous stage but part of that agreement was if in fact this is a review it goes back to april of eleven and it goes back to a best interest stand which is obvious in both parties testified that they understood probably this is so i don't think is it you can say she agreed and therefore that's the end story with regard to  not teachers and neighbors not talking about preferences none of the teachers talked about preferences in expressed by the child none of the neighbors talked about birth most precious of preference and people a child going to tell a preference to