supreme court will nine no one to you requires that a decision in a custody case he made no later than sixty days after the completion of the trial or hearing on the matter despite that required what into which went into effect prior to the commencement of these proceedings associate judge brian mcphee hears waited more than five waited five hundred eighty six the more than nineteen months before making a decision on the permanent custody of what had been on the day of the let the last day of the third day of permanent custody proceedings a two and a half year old child this is on top of the fact that the courts the evidence that cour heard included virtually no information on the facts factors required to be considered under six of two with regard to the interaction intra lation ship of the child with persons who may significantly affect the child well just who's in charge of promulgating it's the party it's what happened it's the court it's the courts probably where is there were three dates for permanent custody hearings in the middle of those hearings still in july two hearings in july and then september nineteen the respondent right the father of the child moved from champaign illinois down to carbondale illinois the court looks at the evidence that was properly admitted and then of the court's ruling in the separate appendi that's only part of my my argument the other part is as the old see from the record when the court failed to make any ruling within sixty days of the close of evidence and in fact within  to present evidence about what's happened with the minor child in the last nearly year since the court the sense proof closed the court tonight that was there prof were whatever it's more there was a it was a verified motion to reopen proves it so essentially i think that can be considered a proffer that because it was verified it was allegations and facts set forth by the respondent by katherine as to issues that the court can and should consider that relate hearing on that and the court granted on october twentieth the motion to dismiss greg's motion to dismiss and denied the the motion to reopen proves that verified motion there was never an answer or verified response filed by craig to the july thirtieth two thousand and nine motion to reopen proofs still without any response or without any ruling by the court even after four hundred twelve days had passed on october twentieth when the court heard only legal arguments and denied the motion to reconsider katherine then on november fifth two thousand and nine filed a motion to reconsider that was four hundred twenty days after proofs had closed the court katherine then asked for and filed a motion to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the motion to reconsider suggesting that if there were issues if for example greg did not object and did not deny some of the allegations on the motion to reconsider it would allow the court to then be able to determine whether there was whether the the issue should be reopened for prove again only after september nineteenth two thousand and eight evidence of the child and the court on january nineteenth now four hundred eighty seven days after the september nineteenth two thousand a close of proof denied the motion to reconsider it and deny katherine's motion for an evidentiary hearing it wasn't until five hundred eighty six days after proved that close of course much longer than the sixty days required by supreme court ruled by no one team months based on evidence about the child when he was only two and a half years old despite that fact if katherine wants to try to modify custody two years from april twenty eighth she has to dish she has to show and demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances not from the evidence that the court heard back in september of two thousand and eight but from the court's ruling from the dean of the courtroom wing in april two thousand and ten despite about the children well no evidence about the child's relationship with his babysitters down and cover until there's under the as the court notes craig has a baby sitter three nights a week for the child you know nothing about who or how many babysitters there are whole much time they spend with the child how that relationship is going we know nothing about the challenge of relationship in a daycare within a day care friends if there are any play groups if there are any activities at home and so the factors that a judge was required to consider under six o two could take could not have been considered because the court refused to hear any evidence despite katherine's repeated requests to reopen proofs to provide  permanent custody decision as to factors three the interaction in the relationship of the child with parents siblings and other persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest in coverdale except we have the history of great relationship with the child's back in champaign we have history and then we have the information and testimony regarding catherine's relationship with the child her children and from three children from a prior relationship prior marriage those children relationship with marcus and we have the information about laramie wyoming where katherine has lived the entire time but we have nothing about this new city of carbondale and child's interactions and there are interrelat with anyone down there including these baby babysitters or the daycare providers or anyone else there we have to factor eight which is the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate it and encourage a close and continue relationship we have with the other parent in the child we have no information from way about what how that has changed or how how that is encouraged because again the court refused to allow that information we do have to verify pleading filed by catherine some sequential september nineteenth two thousand and eight with regard to greg's behavior since september nineteenth two thousand and eight his interference with that relationship is refusal to allow katherine and the children to timer as to the phone and video time that it should katherine and her children could spend with marcus we have the evidence and rebutted that while greg would allow his mother to have more than one telephone conference or telephone call a day with minor child greg limited catherine to only one telephone call a day and again in that comp in those conversations those words is strictly limited by the a time or so we do have those admissions as to his pa refuse to allow any new evidence and you have an injury hearing as to the best interests of the child who supply one thousand two thousand eight when the court failed to comply not just by a little bit than more than seventeen months failed to comply with supreme court will nine zero one now this might not have been as much of a big deal if greg had lived in champaign and continued to live in champaign because we heard some testimony from the sometimes daycare provider chapman the neighbor carol sparks were in and a whole new community a whole new set of relationships presumably for the child with the daycare with many activities we don't know if they're playgroups we don't know anything about any babysitters i'm not sure if we even learned any names of any of the babysitters but yet the judge made his determination on the best interests of the child based on evidence that occurred back in two thousand and eight in the summer of two thousand eight in champagne without consideration apparently certainly there's nothing in it in his ruling to suggest that he considered or even knew about anything that was going on and share in common even there's there extent of the information we know about the neighborhood in which marcus lives we don't know anything about the neighbors perhaps their head they haven't even met any neighbors we have that neighborhood or those really we know nothing about the babysitters of those people who apparently spend several evenings a week with marcus and we know nothing about the deep here in carbondale except legs and mission that she refused to provide and put down catherine's name as the child's mother for the until day care refused to provide her name or phone number or any contact information about as an emergency contact or anything if if greg were not able to be contacted essentially what we do know is that he history in champaign was an attempt since craig i received temporary custody after katherine neither katherine nor her attorney showed up for the temporary custody hearings catherine was in wyoming had been told by her attorney at the hearing her previous attorney of the hearing that greg has attempted and that everything he could as limited guardian ad litum other roger marsh pointed out and lectured greg about to keep katherine and her children away from marcus and limit any time while freely providing time with the neighbor in champaign count sparks with the baby sitter sheila chapman and with his mother who's out in new york and would come and visit there was no there were no restrictions on any time for those non family members but when it came to marcus's mother there were restrictions after restrictions after restrictions that we know about what happened in champaign and incumbent the court had nothing on which to base a decision on the best interest of the time because the court had nothing had virtually no evidence and refused and turned a blind eye to the attempts to provide and ask for an evidentiary hearing and it factors on and on evidence of the best interests of the child since september nineteenth two thousand and says if the supreme court rules apparently don't matter in champaign county or it least when it comes to the best interest of the child if a child's age can essentially double while the court refuses to hear evidence on the child's best interest and instead turns to  evidence and clearly a lot of inadmissible evidence from police reports for which there was no four that were admitted despite the objections the hearsay infections and the uncorroborated these reports that uncorroborated and in fact a nine by by katherine and as well as a divorce decree that was not properly admitted and to which katherine's name or her nor nor katherine nor her the minor child to katherine after having interviewed katherine after having interviewed greg and i believe contacting a few other people and then looking over documents testifying that he was leaning towards katherine and one week later changed his decision and why was that he admits under testimony that the only reason he changed his recommendation was after having reviewed police reports provided by greg's attorney without any knowledge as to or katherine's attorney that he was reviewing these reports and without any opportunity to then respond and say wait a minute here's the real evidence here's what really happened one of the reasons why this court and every other court police reports despite them being hearsay and relies on those in making a determination on custody permanent custody despite the fact that police reports were that there was no testimony by anyone verifying the statements in the police report and despite the fact that he  available but he talked with her about marcus having been in the having been left in the parking lot and how katherine rushed back he talked about that and in fact i think that was one of the big issues that greg brought up the important one i think is significant is right never raised an issue there was about this until the divorce proceedings start right never flew back to go see katherine to go from that catherine's response and then the cross examination of limited guardian ad litem is that for example the tommy jackson's he asked katherine did you go to tommy jacks did you have some alcohol the police report claims and i think greg did try to drive in a car she in fact called her friend who came to pick her up not because she was in the braided but because she didn't want to take any risks so yes there was some discussions about various events that were then includes reports but the entirety of these police reports for example being in the related and other allegations like that from those police reports in fact under cross examination by roger marsh demonstrate that they were not corroborated and those facts and those police reports should not have been admitted because those he did not get verification from katherine that in fact those incidents as a tried to make this case about every legal issue possible other than what is really all of her arguments however cannot change the facts and cannot change the facts of her troubling history regarding her feel year to supervise not only her children from a prior marriage but also the minor child in this case mar and investigated facts outside the records to be the eyes and ears of the trial court help the trial court arrive at an appropriate permanent custody decision furthermore  her kids from prior marriage and of mark is troubling but they are simple the truth is that miss trowbridge left her infant daughter in a van and went and left her daughter alone and went to rent a home across the street or something she got out of the car and went across the street to talk to the landlord and that was her explanation for why she left the kids in the car she may have also said something about the fact that it was cold and so she left the i'm even looking at the events that have occurred in this case with respect to this child farkas it's total and the record provides solid information solid foundation for the trial court's decision intoxicated she was drinking and she had marks with her the police intervened because someone thought she was going to be driving away with this child on and then there was another incident and mr wilkerson testified that he had been visiting in wyoming again back in two thousand and six miss trowbridge came home after a night she had been drinking she had marcus with her and she refused to come inside the house they had an argument and she said i'm not coming in marc and i are sleeping in the car and this was in the dead of winter so these events again provide ample evidence for the trial court's decision mr wilkerson on the other hand has provided a safe and stable environment credibility of all individuals involved in this case the trial court heard the rainy days of evidence and testimony regarding the best interests of the minor child  changed the result in the case and if you look at the motion to reopen proofs there's nothing in there that would change the result it's more of the same and it's more allegations that  information is there and as i said whether it is of the utmost important it is i see it only one of the best interests factors is really coming into play by those allegations and that's the statute that investigator permission to consult and take information from adult full of personal psychiatric personal or other expert persons who have served the child in the past and that's without obtaining the parents consent and the parties are have the ability to investigate or cross examined investigator and a list that you know whether there was a bias or whether there was error by the investigator  litem did testify in this trowbridge have the opportunity to cross examine him and ask him about any potential bias if there were if there were errors in the police reports or other information that the limited guardian ad litum had to she had the opportunity to point it out to ask him about it on the stand point out all of the systems used in her closing arguments to the co as far as jurisdiction is concerning if this court this concerns if at all about mr bridges arguments that the six month period doesn't work or it doesn't matter or it doesn't meet the standard declined to exercise their discretion the wyoming court said that marcus did reside in illinois for six months more than six months prior to the beginning of the custody dispute and illinois was the more appropriate forum for an additional reasons and those reasons were down again marcus lived most of his life in illinois but also this new office and only resided in illinois and so all the evidence about relationship to marcus was in illinois and that therefore meets the standard under the act one court that could potentially be the child's home state exercised through stiction the child and parent have a significant contact or connection to illinois and there is substantial evidence in illinois bearing on the custo again i think it's important to remember that all of this all of the allegations about whether this court should remain and this case back for more evidence failed to meet the standards because again nothing has been a eged that is of the most importance to the case and this program really could have done more to exercise due diligence to uncover those facts before now and before she filed her motion to reopen groups if it's true mr wilkerson moved during the pendency of the hearings but this truck bridge could have brought that to the court's attention and asked for more time she could have done something at that point in time to try to elicit more information or to try to push the the court's next hearing back to be able to get more information and the boy that would have had to decide whether that was appropriate and whether there was a her to a visitation and none of these issues are most important to the case because of the other facts that we can't change that they're on the issue of custody and they're on the best the record and brief and what i had done was provided a statement of facts which of course apologies are not required to do and i cited the record throughout my eight or nine page statement of facts in my brief now perhaps it's my fault and i drew an objection by not getting fighting every single time to the record when i referred to those arguments in my argument but your honor i believe this case is too important to be decided on that issue and tried to get out of the trial court there is a big imbalance she is trying to present information about babysitters and daycare providers who marcus is coming in contact with in mr benjamin that this case is about the best interests of the child but the fact is soon especially in style respect has responded to the fact that the court had no evidence virtually no evidence about the best interest factors of the child in way i made this decision on the basis of the fact that i don't think this child would be safe with your cory and whether mr wilkerson is an ideal parent and whether or not he facilitates matter what what's going on essentially i don't have information on carbondale but i have information about your client catherine's up history from fourteen years ago way back with children with her children who she has joint custody  from a time before she even met greg wilkerson and the court considers that considers that one important evidence despite the fact they at those that information and those allegations come from police reports and as i say discussed on starting in the reply brief at peach trial with regard to mr marsh's testimony from between the time he received those police reports on january fifteenth two thousand and eight those hundred eight pages include discussions about her market her relationship with marcus marcus his relationship with siblings she is joint custody with affection marcus's step siblings and there discussion about how because marcus is half black and half white house she raised her children to consider and talk about marcus as their sibling so that they don't see this dividing racial dividing line there's and have simply a different father and there's discussions about those relationships with the children i had and didn't have an opportunity to discuss their air to discuss the jurisdictional issues and what i would like to mention is all these factors that great points to this evidence are so called evidence of police reports and things that happened back in wyoming could have been discussed could have actually been properly admitted into evidence and police officers called had the jurisdiction been in wyoming where it should probably have been this is where the petition for dissolution was first filed in the state of wyoming marcus had returned home to wyoming where katherine was living and simply had visited craig in illinois but rather said return home during the time there visit i think in the fall in august of two thousand and eight and the factors point to wyoming being the proper place we are all of that evidence and information can be great at actually filed in his one of these affidavits that he intended to return to the rocky mountain area as his permanent residence being wyoming or being in that rocky mountain area even though this is a family law case and under the marriage and dissolution of marriage act the rules of evidence and the rules of evidence  this court should be concerned and i hope this court remains concerned that the appellate court is sorry that the associate judge did not have evidence to rely on referring to me as the associate is that his head has been on the bench since nineteen ninety six i believe and does have i think a lot more experience on the issues of of the of custody decisions and in the family i think he's he's dealt with those issues a lot longer mcfee your judgment peters was in traffic or for a while and i think at the time he took over this case had just recently gone on to the to the family law bench