honor this case your honors we believe this case is the only case out there where the five eckert factors were for the five becker factors favored removal and removal was denied based on the finding that a reasonable and practical visitation schedule could not be crafted for a j singh to visit his daughter sonia and i'm for him as a j daughter is saudi and my client is me to for convenience purposes in this case the court found that the predicate factor for removal that there was a likelihood that the move would enhance the  well being the life of the mother and the child was found the court found that my client meta had a purpose motive for the move consistent with the fact that it would improve her and her child's life the court found that a j did not have an improper motive for resisting the removal and that he had exercised his visitation and had a close relationship with his child the court only determination the best interest of the child which is completely inconsistent with the holding of colleen byrne and the cases cited in our in our briefs particularly cogburn which says though the relationship of the father with the child is important the most important factor is what will be the benefit or effect on the child of leave to remove scuse me the the standard for you is manifest way to be evidence on the father's visitation that's a neutral factor in this situation i don't know that there's no evidence how that is positive or negative that's a neutral factor it's not even discussed because a j did have visitation and it was occasion because if you're on the trial court the top of the expert whose opinion i don't believe should have been admitted but assuming that it was in evidence it which it was the courts that her finding rise quot that removal may possibly have a negative effect in the future now i don't know what that really means other than that something could happen in the future that is not a specific directive or finding or opinion i could have given that opinion i could tell you and anyone on this in this room could tell you that if the father moves from arlington high i mean the child moves from to fayetteville that in truth the future might possibly have a negative effect on the relationship of the father in the child that is not the test to determine whether removal is appropriate because each and every case says there will be a diminishment of the father's parenting time when there is removal that is to the head otherwise is to give the father an impermissible veto which is i believe what happened in this case that age raised visitation if you read the judge serapis the psychologist said about removal it might possibly have a negative effect the judge did not attempt to craft a reasonable visitor and practical visitation schedule which i believe for god to deference to the trial court was an abrogation of his responsibility trial court judges every day craft reasonable and practical visitation schedules for people who live in different cities who live in j is a senior executive vice president of united airlines and flies for free unlimited on united airlines the only consequence being it may be taxable income to him his daughter sonya tries for free his new wife kendra flies for free on united airlines and has other reciprocal agreements with all the ok alliance there are over sixty two flights between chicago and o'hare inconceivable under the circumstance or manner as in excess of four hundred thousand dollars a year has unlimited access to airline flights between two of the largest airports in the world chicago and midway and it one of the hobs in the southeast at raleigh durham that a reasonable impractical visitation schedule could be could not be could not be crafted and the judge said that  this is particularly true where nita at trial testified that as to what she believes a reasonable has a taishan schedule would be which is the standard schedule generally for out of state parents which is a longer periods of time and less frequency that calculus is done every day in court so half the summer every spring alternating thanksgiving half of holidays whenever you could come whenever he could come in town and long weekends usually in let's say chicago and that testimony was on her but it and need to even offer to pick up a j at the airport in raleigh durham and drive to fayetteville which is about an hour an hour and a half drive and surprisingly where the judge found that a reasonable visitation or practical one could not be crafted when i asked a j on the witness stand could you please tell the court what you believe would be a reasonable parenting schedule if media were given leave to remove the judge's closing counsel jacket and it was sustained i couldn't even ask him the question of course to schedule exist and then the judge determined that one didn't exist so how can that be appropriate or a failure under the circumstances and that what happens trial became not about what's in the best interests of sonia it became what is did not what they say they do with the trial because you can say that alleged anything in a pleading or in a quote room particularly when the harsh glare of judicial scrutiny is on but look at what they did when nobody was looking at what happened in this case i a joint parenting agreement was entered prior to the financials being resolved six months into it and that that schedule is still in effect today at joint pic now they get divorced the financial settlement is not done in the divorce has not entered total riots all five another year in a court order now even in divorce language that means that she didn't hurt up custody for the money she did of twelve months before from the date running court proceeding instituted pleading any problems between the two of that was brought to the court's attention he emails at work that she kept from that period of time she being made to eighteen emails run and i asked the court to read them one dealt with visitation it wasn't a problem was just rearranging the schedule one the other ones dealt with who was going to pay for daycare and i did you send me the check and they were all very businesslike now september o six she tells a metal meeting that she wants to leave the state what is the next thing that happens now that now that that comes out he files a petition for visitation of use alleging i venture that occurred in two thousand and two and two thousand and three when they were still living together and they weren't even to the divorce proceeding had happened then he sends a hundred and forty thirty emails from nine o six to about april of zero zero eight when the trial began one hundred forty four leaving and says that his wrists and when the staircase says there might be a negative effect because she made may not be able to foster his relationship the fact that she has fostered it that with his hat th so many ways that if i go in with a therapist tell the truth if you want to go say you want to go it should not be determinative of this case and in particular judge i want to just because i know i'm going to run out of time in five this crew or judge know pez based his decision on the failure to craft a reasonable visitation schedule parroted the exact same words that the child's representative said in her impermissible closing argument and i think that that's under five or six of the and this is cannot be gotten around under five or six it is mandatory if the word shall that the trays that the child is represented shall disclose her position in a pretrial memorandum cert circulated to the parties in the court before the trial this trial is representative shall not issue an offer an opinion or recommendation and only make fact based legal evidence based legal arguments if you read for the child representatives closing argument it is replete with everything it says the statute says you cannot do she said i want you to be hard on removal judge i want you to do not on behalf of this trial to deny removal judge i want you you cannot craft a reasonable and practical visitation schedule in this case judge judge as as we're speaking sony is happy as a clam in daycare having play with her fruit which which was real time saying what happened is like if i said right now my client this at home with the child taking care of her and can't be here today that would be that i didn't raise the argument that protected that that i waved it at the trial court the trial court rejected that argument i can't wave a statute that's for the benefit of the child i don't distract she doesn't allow for a waiver it's not there for my benefit that is a reversible error that is prejudicial because the baby the only way you usually get around those arguments on the appellate level is to say it was a was harmless wesnoth harmless when you parrot the exact same thing the child's  says and it that that's part of why the divorce division has had the reputation sometimes as the wild west because the rules don't apply well that's a really simple rule that should have applied that one is not even a complex consideration in the court two nine removed from saying if she well it's going to green roof this child we need to make sure that there's some protections in place to make sure that a j and his child continue to have such a close roam roughly in relationship with not just the quantity of time but the quality of time that they enjoy and instead we had a parent who continuously refused additional time for the father when he asked including on such occasions as his wedding including an occasions when he was out of town in europe came home wanting to see his daughter or him was refused access including new telephone calls and important the holidays of birthday we also have a mother who refused to talk to father about certain things like extra curricular activity or about the time that the child spring term incog or about the time that the child got shut and we also have a parent who in road for a child in school without notifying the father she didn't just do it it requires consultation and it requires smoothly me to didn't seem to care and imagine how she would act or conduct yourself if the court was her botching and if she was after the break in north carolina  this child i'm not a fundamental problem of course as justice hochman noted was the coaching of sonia the expert in the court found that this was extremely damaging to the south esteem of an eight year old who didn't he think the quality of life would be better in whatever carolina with north carolina than it would be here again in addition to this the mother said i would have to work anymore i c the bigger house the pull and so forth and then a couple paragraphs after that the court goes on to talk about how close were damaged the relationship between sonia so if we took out that sentence and just looked at it in isolation yes that would be a factor favoring that but if you look down to but this is really about it's about the relationship between a child and her parents that's just a mother not just her father but decided to search for a drug for a new husband despite her agreement to remit her cheat a graphic home to not only eleanor but their parenting agreement which is unusual she made that agreement and then when questioned about it she said well it wasn't important for me to stay vocal but for you may not have been but you and your ex husband decided that it was important to the child that she would remain stable be easy access when people in your other is going to change it's going to change and it's not going to be the same but let's look at what's realistic and let's look at what's really simple they not every case to we have a parent who has joint custody and joint decision making but also a substantial number of days with his child every week and over night and  opponent takes issue with her characterization as nearly fifty fifty time the fact is if you do the math it's a really equal time he sees his child seven out of fourteen days that's not going to happen we know  number two what is quality parenting time right now we have a child who benefits from both parents being in the picture to put her to bed at night to wake up with her in the morning is always  case and i had mentioned it and i certainly talk about it in my proof but it's worth repeating we don't have a mother who has been co operative we don't have a mother who's been flux a couple with extra parenting time she says she will believe that her again let's note at what happened since it she said now i don't want my child to move we know from his testimony which was found credible that the fiance threatened but then it got to the point where nato put her foot down and said you don't target i say you'll see what happens when i mean control and try to assert that control i was getting to the point to say there have been custody cases where people have the last custody of their child because they have frustrated visitation because they have frustrated interfered with the relationship between the child and the other parent custody was taken away because of that well in intent here and the intent to frustrate the relationship between sonya and a j and so these costs wouldn't have become so minimal if perhaps that factor wasn't so striking but i submit to you again  a change that one who works his time is not on limited first costs associated with hotels and those costs associated with not tucking your daughter in at night in her bed in your home  that that's the problem with this decision because as you said it's inherently inconsistent you cannot find that a move would be good for a child and at the same time find that it would frustrate visitation so one of those findings is wrong judge and my suggestion to you is that the wrong finding is the one where a j really wants to have it there is ways that she's frustrated his visitation how can she have frustrated his visitation if he has as you look at his grief it says that he's an involved parent he goes to all the activities page twenty six twenty one thousand of his grief he speaks to it every night he goes to karate tumbleweeds i want someone you can't have it both ways to can't be such an involved parent that to leave the frustrate the relationship and at the same time accuse the party who you've lived in a joint custody with for the last five years of interfering with your parental rights that's inconsistent either she interfered or she did it and if she didn't he has a much more likely than not is that his good relationship is as a result of both of their work and it's borne out by the record because instead of just guessing whether as to just lopez said that she didn't adhere t highest principles of the joint parents agreement look at the record has there been a finding that she has been guilty of visitation abuse has there been a petition filed for a rule to show cause has there been any adjudication that she was in any way shape or form deprived him  any visitation the answer is no in fact the judge found that to petition for visitation abuse and filed after she found out he said he found out that she was going to leave was done for litigation strategy and in that and dismissed it finding that visitation would be frustrated was dismissed the emails that form the basis of he didn't give me the reading he didn't give me my birthdate all those the judge found as irrelevant and not persuasive because they were done when litigation were spending yet those are the same incidents that the judge sort of makes a finding that would somehow she was frustrated as visitation you can't have it both ways and the court and to say as opposing counsel said that she didn't see two additional request but is where is is is that a basis for denial of removal is that every visit tension is worked out perfectly but you don't want to see two additional requests because all that means is that a j has to ask for additional time he don't great and you're a bad parent and you can't remove and in fact if you're on a look at their motion for additional parenting time in the summer of zero eight they allege that they wanted the entire summer because of the fact that she might be given a leave to remove during that summer and she did not agree to that and that's been the judge's finding as a basis for her being not cooperative so you could ask for anything not agree to it and you're a bad person and what's also offensive in this case judge is let's talk really about because we're talking about a j all the time and his visitation well he has a good relationship with the child and i guess if she has to for everyone in this case it would have good better for her not to agree to joint parenting and all three not to give them substantial amount agreed a substantial amount of time and keep it to alternate weekends or one night a week for dinner so what kind of message are we sending litigants and here are we supposed to say supposed to be cooperative work with the other person give them enough time and you'll be provided from ever seeking removal i you're telling lit way they probably she probably missed one day she probably had a miscommunication they were angry at each other that's why they got the force but if you look at the objective for it criteria in this case not one word not one pleading not one motion not one e mail at it all reflects any negative consequences to him and that's why he has a good relationship with his daughter and calls her every night not misses the phone contact as a court in their brief and right here it's going to be upsetting for him if he moves but that's the consequence of living in a society we live and to say that he's allowed to remarry someone who works in his office and so you can enjoy a traditional family with a st that brother in chicago but can't move into a step father's home where they step sister who is ten years old whose tryst they've been going out for two years now the trial testified they treat each other as sisters two indian girls eight and ten years old very close that would go to the same school group to say that is inappropriate this is not this child spends a levon hours in day care and school every day five days a week twelve months a year both her parents were full time her standard of living and rice will beat measurably improve when her mom doesn't have to work when she can walk to school and participate in extracurricular activities in a traditional family setting sells you that that's important thank you