thank you and for the happily is attorney robert bonking that afternoon counsel for the record just note that accommodations have been made such that two signing interpreters are present in court and are signing for the parties today is that correct all right mr studio you ready to proceed you may best interest as i'm sure the courts well versed and aware of these actions are governed by you know american dissolution act in major precedence was set in these cases by our supreme court  eckerd court noted that these cases must be determined on a case by case basis depending to great extent on the circumstances of each case out from the court in this case presents unique circumstances in light of the unique needs of the children being deaf and hard here the children are at certain risk in light of the special needs of their education in chicago a witness for kur testified that we're going to read and write is a problem worldwide for deaf are hearing children so these problems in the end into adulthood can result in under employment of these children when they reach adulthood and these problems are central to this case and their central to the motivation of my client clare rawlinson seeking removal of these children from the state of illinois to pursue a better education at the state of indiana at the indiana stat  we believe that the evidence at trial is undeniably showed that the indiana school for the deaf provides a better education and educational opportunities for the children than what they are currently receiving at the only school for that apply to all four children your honor i believe it would apply to all four children and specifically i not only do i believe it applies to all four children i think it must be considered for all children to keep them together as a cohesive family unit but we believe the court the evidence in this case shows is some very common things for not just the children of parties but the other witnesses who presented testimony and those are the only school for the deaf has routinely failed to implement in educate through these deaf and hard hearing childrens native language american science which also multiple families  deaf role models at this school and unhappy school environment likewise there is a lack of opportunity if the only school for the deaf force opportunities of coursework and also extracurricular activities and children say so certainly there's been testimony that clodius in kopi no are capable of speaking and do speak with their father communicate with them in a s l their mother communicate with them in an cell and all the children and granted the petitioners that session to modify the allocation of parenting time are you seeking review of those rulings as well yes your honor i believe they are linked because we can't have my clients petition to relocate granted with out the change and parent your responsibilities and also parent time here any time based on prior schedule just wouldn't be you couldn't do it based on the difference but as i read your grief the factors that you highlight the statutory factors that you highlight and address a limit to those relating to the official to relocate and did not  i focused on the section of the statute that discusses best interest under relocation and i believe the after helly focus on the other factors of the focus on parenting time and parenting responsibilities i court that rick perry responsibilities in time be modified and i did focus on the relocation is the main issue because i see that as a driving issue in this case the other best interest factors under those other two statutes are not exactly the same but there certainly overlap in them and i think that the court can consider all those factors as far as the mathematicians case but yes we are asking for the court to reconsider not just of this case even though i know the groups are filled with them and this is a full luminous case as far as the family law cases concerned but if we look at court corben is now ten years old he is completely at ten years old he communicates vice gesturing it's very brief communications this child can't communicate his school records show that he uses one sign utterances him points to things to communicate at the age of ten this description of his ability to communicate isn't just recorded in one of his individualized education program it spans years where his individualized education program describes this as this boy's ability to communicate he was a third grader in the prior year before we tried this matter at that point in time his reading and language education was provided at the grade at the level of a perjury his expressive language was noted to became a matter of pairs and black detail and he was functioning below grade level in math in fact some of his score showed that over a on extended period of time from august twenty fifth seemed through march twenty sixth team he improved by three months and that point time was still being educated the first british law when he was in third grade he spent cute speech which is the issue in this case he's been educated with this tool since kindergarten he's now in the third grade still by the witnesses testify that he is not progressing year for year so we see this every year  in school at the almost school for the deaf he is going to rest of leave fall behind based upon the prior history angela kuhn testified when presented with this event she admitted while she testif curt stressed in his testimony that he felt poor in this meeting goals meeting the goals of this case and i think this is where we can see how the parties differ and why we're here before the court today because we do not believe that continuing to be educated first grade level multiple years of being unable to communicate should be a satisfactory accomplishment as far as goals go foreign student in third grade at a specialized education school such as seal a school for the deaf regarding celine this is the triplets who is deaf the other two are quoting protein or heart hearing her language skills at the time trial were half that of children other children her age her children her sisters who can't speak in here via use of hearing aids were slightly better but they were also delayed and behind meg to touch base a little bit on the cute speech that is a major issue in this case there's been absolutely no verifiable evidence or data to show the cute speech actually improves the education for deaf and hard hearing students in alternatively every witness in this case has agreed that children can learn english and to speak urge to write it and communicate with english via the use of american sign which is the base language for communication for deaf people the united states for your honors i think the main issue in this case and one of the most important things is players present only what this isn't the case that have experience education at the almost school for the deaf and experienced the education provided to the indian that was not true and they were in fact being instructed honor i'm not trying to say that they should only provide on this one fact my emphasize that i think it is far more most the most important factor now i do not think the court should disregard and i don't think that it would be appropriate to disregard th issue with the way the court waive those factors but they serve all of us are to question going back to the low children we found out that they were being told the truth the kids are being educated beach beach all they learned the children were more than a year behind after leaving the only school for the deaf and since being enrolled in the only per the indian school for the deaf children reading writing and communication has improved the children are very happy and they have some very positive role models also lowe's told us which is a continuing theme here school yet only school that they felt the futures of the only school for the deaf are more concerned  deaf and if proper translation is provided yes humans could miss the communication his daughter areola affirm this with a very fact specific scenario that happened to her when she was left behind in a communication in class because in this case mr damon traveled there in his testimony what's he was shocked at how wonderful that school was he was very impressed with the opportunities presented the courses that were fail at the indiana school for the day of the one available almost school for them and that's documented in the curriculum that is in the record on heal his kids who testified about their changes in their improvement after tennis would by his own testimony he said their knowledge rather i think that wouldn't exactly be what i'm saying what i'm saying is i think it's granted more weight than the other factors and i think that case law tells us that this court can do that in a trial court well but i take issue with also take issue with the court's analysis of many of the factors in this case for instance the court stated purpose much more active like if i'm quoting i don't have a front of order but he believed time that was ok yes i think the court can well factors i think that they got it wrong your honor i think they got it wrong regarding many of the factors as far as what up about whether they lied in courage factor or her courage favor or claims i haven't briefed that as extensively because i want to emphasize the educational background but in general i agree that all factors have you considered and i do not think the court in this time are as they are that they are so far behind in that the in educational opportunities that in the end it's much better i do not see how it can be and not be in their best interests to be with a fit parent to pursue the best but all that's going to be wrapped up in the question of what's in the best pictures were these for whom sure as always is a case where children are different we're going to have to talk about the children individually and as well as a whole how is this not an allocation of present responsibilities case both parties filed a petition asking the court to modify the decision making and parenting time we have to start with the and parenting time and in six zero nine as to the relocation so what do we start is an area that troubled me throughout this case write native language spoken english that's what the evidence was clear that yes you have to communicate with their parents using a s l but that's not how they normally would would communicate clear in his opinion the evidence show that for all four children the indian school was severe i totally disagree with that and i found it just briefly this will slide in statement that how do we not educate these two here in children in the best possible environment which is going to be ok with hearing spoken english as a communication method for their education their voices off why how it just is there's no evidence and it absolutely makes no sense to me that the two hearing children are best served by being  here so only environment i think there's no evidence that they're better off there that's what you're going to be in at the indiana school for the deaf and i have to believe that limits their ability start with health care we have two children who have an issue with kolker implants both viet and or implants the reply brief states that what she was going to set up an appointment for a specialist in indiana i submit to the panel that was a hoax that was below because what happened was time for the co surgery point and made such a ruckus that the surgeon backed away and when performed the surgery now how do we understand what mother would not want her two children i can't believe there's an answer and i would say her answer would be her if she was given a trial which she talked about celine and coke or implants and it was in an  children with respect to the hearing i just don't understand how would you not want your children to be able to hear she doesn't worry about whether or not celine's do i understand you to be saying that that is her position and your organ it is its purpose ition she does not want the children to hear i think her position is she's not going to do anything to help them to hear i don't know if i can take it as far as you have i i i don't obviously i don't know what's in her own in her mind but everything she's done makes me fear that she isn't worried about because they need to communicate with her with it's not necessarily all that important that they'd be able to hear and s argues that we should go to india because that's a better school word by the way he sort of ignored the fact that she has a learning disability that also creates a problem in addition to his steps so that sort of gets pushed aside and that never is taken into account by appellate so when we look at this education what parent has demonstrated an active involvement in children's education in trying to enhance their education teachers asking for additional help that he can give to disputants the kids at home has done that evidence about him reading to the children helping her with his homework technically he's the which parent is better equipped which parent has remained straighted to the core the ability to get involved with the children's education to be actively promoting their education but there's only one of these two parents it's done education and i'm not here to say that it's an important to certainly support supporting my client that's why it's been so active and so much promoting in promoting as far as the activities of lesser importance we have seized we have the issue of mr coud be actively activities how could a court not looking at that evidence decide that mr coon was in a better position than this is kim this is robin's to make that decision he couldn't and as far as the relationships but your children have court heard evidence regarding the children's relationship with their father and with their mother the difference between the two or heard evidence about preferences or heard evidence about the children's relationships with the family members i don't think i've ever had a case in thirty five plus years doing family law right had this many family members in the school i think it's wonderful evidence was how these children children run up to their their aunts and uncles how much how they read them very excited to see them the principal of the school is there and these are people that are actively helping the show with their education and that can be a bad thing it's a wonderful thing well i'm sure mr shute would argue that those people are biased towards the kids feed purses the american sign language and we're behind we're behind we're behind behind what behind what here in child should be doing absolutely behind were these children as deaf children behind  got a learning disability and the deafness to deal with is he really behind if you where we want him to be if he were my client wants him to be absolutely not busy behind can he get to where he needs to be with the cute speech oh well first of all he's not only getting cute speech he is instructed in a s l and cute speech and that was i think that clearly as i repeat as education reading with dad and they're trying to read it and used to speech the girls if they ask but i have a problem and the two hearing children aren't as good speech as the speech was helpful to the still that was the testimony the court heard there is no evidence to the contrary those were the findings of court made based on that i think the key is you've got small it's been so long i should remember after three days of trying to slow down are you asking me if there's anything the association supports what the national soul or indeed records reports the national association statement home school community they are now in the house where they were gone since i've been born that's where they live for my client is with the children that was clear of the record that's what was going to happen that's where we are today the only educators testifying that are actually involved in academic subject for the educator with educators from the only school for the deaf those are the only people that testified about being in the classroom with the children and knowing what was going on with the children defense educator aside from bob graham and who did not testify about teaching the children only deaf educator from this school that testified on behalf of claire in the only one who's actually deaf and what she did is she said that school was so bad she wouldn't send her own kids ever so that is not accurate regarding the educators a tool for deaf not a single deaf person testified her corbin to translate cute speech for them well i don't recall it being testimony at trial and back to i e pete at least six so weighed in our three sixteen of the record says that evaluations had made twenty fifteen show that within the past year corbin's english vocabulary was improving how ever often he struggled to understand what he reads in the language presented to him through the air via cute speech so those on a piece individualized education programs under federal law are not being bou honor just churn amid an excellent point i would argue that these witnesses are biased toward cute speech angela kuhn was the parade marshal in washington d c to celebrate cute speech she k regarding kurt and the health care issue the first matter touched on by mr bond the interesting thing is that before kurt ever made had an issue clear requested leave of court because curt had decision making final decision making on health care she requested leave to have these children evaluated by and otolaryngologist a doctor for hearing in indiana after that and when this matter was really coming to issue that's  time looking into who clear him when it springs so i find that to be a very self serving statement particularly regarding his statements that he's made all these decisions that education health care we're here because he wouldn't allow claire to be involved so to make that be one of the factors in decisions to say no to claire seems self serving for her to me because he would later get to do it anyway  also regarding closure involvement with the children when corbin was younger she had three girls infants and she was taking care of a stay at home mother while kurt was allowed to work on campus where this child went to school it's easy to talk to the teachers in that situation what about if you have three infants that you're taking care of much harder for claire then when those girls went to school she had her little boy at home take care was an eighteen months old this point in time as opinions i wanted to touch base based on justice department statements paragraph eight the judge says that kitchener has been the only parent actively involved in children's education claire pushed for the girls to be