i must assert respect to this core and in all due respect to the trial court that in this case if the ruling by the core is not found to be against the manifest way of the evidence every location is not off the rise the only time a relocation case would be appropriate would be if the objecting parent had no relationship with the child i don't want to go through the factors which of course this court in the trial court consider the first factor being the circumstances and the reasons for the relocation the trial court in this case did say that was one and that the other job that he found in colorado was not overwhelmingly better than the job he had been in that is one of the big issues that i believe your honor knowing they had vacationed elsewhere and they didn't cheat in florida there was testimony and some photographs submitted but they didn't choose to move to colorado yes they did go out there on a vacation yes there was extended family that lived there this bishop's brother sister in law and these two year all nice and a newborn soon to be soon to be born so to fault them for finding colorado and looking at the schools and looking at the other advantages to colorado i don't think is on fair to bam as this court has said in the illinois supreme court has said in the past to fault him first of all for the judge to indicate why he didn't think he wanted to stay in illinois the trial judge had also found there was no ill intent by miss fish she wasn't trying to interfere  with mr live sheers parenting time it was a legitimate decision for them to move but then to fault them because they choose colorado and because after attempting to look for alternative jobs in illinois was which again this court has said if there is no ill will you don't even look to whether they're looking for employment in illinois mr cornell is a welder he's not a manager at target where he might have been able to find a job in peoria or somewhere so he's in a specific field and he had looked for work in illinois he finds his job in colorado which is  argument however i didn't see that i don't believe the court was seeing that and i as a factor but if we're going to go back to did he sufficiently know for employment and now annoy which again i am not quite sure why the trial court did but with all due respect you know he did apply for some welding positions he explained in his testimony other positions he had applied for and the reasons he did not  i'm sorry he did not apply for and the reasons he did not one being that one of the positions was significantly lower paying the other one included significant travel for so did he perform a sufficient job search and eleanore you for going to go there i think he did and it's your position we really should have even gone there yes it is because the trial  t found that there wasn't any ill intent by this bishop and so we go to was the judge based on what the judge said overwhelmingly better judge  and has already noted yes the supervisor even talked about i mean the condition of his position at trinity was was horrendous the company had lost half of its workforce in two thousand seventeen in colorado he's going to end up with seventy eight days more off each year yass the hourly rate is twenty cents an hour less than what he was getting at trinity but when you look to the health insurance for his entire family and his new place of employment it's over nineteen hundred dollars last day and what he was paying at trinity and then insurance didn't even include the entire family because they had insurance at to opportunities for advancement it's much greater faster than it was at trinity he was already training to become a foreman the hourly rates there would be down from twenty four an hour and then jump again to twenty seven an hour they had more for one came at six percent versus three percent and it had trinity so for all of those reasons it was a reasonable decision to move to colorado yes and i think the court's ruling to the contrary was against the manifest the get manifest way of the evidence we all know this is a mobile society and as i indicated he's a welder there are limited positions and there shouldn't have been any fault placed on them to make that decision to move to a better state a better paying job which would benefit madden as well as the entire family the second factor the court looks through is the reason for the objection  sunday five pm we're talking about four days it a month that's that's his schedule two weeks in the summer time alternating weekends this is not her this has never been on where we joint parenting joint decision making the father is involved in in day to day activities in fact this is a situation where mr live she the heart and soul of this child she was the primary caretaker she did all of the season making miss madden and mavis were her life and they are with her twenty four seven she's a stay at home mother so the reason for the time four days out of the month in two weeks in the summer the court really didn't find anything out of the educational other than to say the educational experiences in colorado were not educational experience in colorado the schools they considered would have been they were good for both sides both locations have extended family court found i guess hypothetically or or reason down the road and time goes on the paternal grandparents would be just as close but we have clearly maternal grandparents that were closer  and extended family that were closer now with regard to the impact on the child with this move the only thing the trial court reason it so it really didn't know how this move would impact the child the trial court focused and continued to focus on mr love shearers interests the trial court found only that the visitation  testimony was that he was aware of there was no contradictory test for moni to that effect that would also no your honor that mr live shooter has a seven year old child who he had no relationship with that child throughout the first seven years after this case began and shortly before the trial and system was missed from the shooter's testimony he then was initiating a relationship with that show so clearly mr and i'm sure had not by denying this relocation is to deny him his right to live where mother who everybody said the heart and soul he and the step madden's steps working in this job and either deprived them the opportunity to live together and colorado with step child a step sister step father and the mother who's been the most active in this child's life or it forces mr cornell to lose a well paying job come back to central illinois move in with the maternal grandparents who are already have a sort of burst of with that but it does say that the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent when looking at this the statutory factors which our legislature has laid out yes mr cornell can move back here but that's still not the status quo he's coming back without a job they are coming back without house and that's placing yes they have t the quality of sheers parenting time and whether as a factor and whether the quality of his parenting time is going to be adversely affected by allowing this fre yes the court really all the court noted your honor as it was concerned about the visitation schedule so does that mean the court was concerned about  bishop's and her and her husband's and that's true but i think the evidence demonstrates in the comments by the trial court demonstrate that the court was focusing on mr shear no matter what that it was the court's concern about his visitation not the child's impact impact mr shear but again your honor i submit when you look to the factors and when you look to the extensive amount of parenting time which was propose for mr scheer again he ends up with more time than he had his forehead has many times this has better because when the child is only they here for the few days ahead of them on any comes back and because different disciplinary practices are used by mr appear versus her it's kind of more confusing for the child so efficient more concentrated power i'm that would be more of a positive positive impact on the child finally judged with regard to even the child's wishes yes we have a young child here but we litem who interviewed the parties who observed the parties and the child and spoke to the child who clearly has a close close relationship with his stepdaughter stepsister  questions and some of the responses you have you received from counsel first of all i want to distinguish between what the court ordered in this case as to parenting time prior court by agreement which was two weekends a month throughout the year and holiday parenting time ms bishop testified as as did mr leach or they didn't follow the schedule mr leach or got at least half the summer ms bishop testified at one point that sometimes in the summer he got up to a month at a time with the child by agreement with regard to mr cornell's health conditions you know the question was i don't remember if this was judgments question or what was phrases were by counsel why would the judge hold this way why would the judge not not take these into account these health conditions well first of all mr cornell said he had these health conditions never saw a doctor never never complain about it he said well though i understand it's dirty work i get it but he was also a smoker at the same time never saw a doctor about it never raised raised the issue with the health care person also remember when we discussed and we had testimony on mr cornell's terminations with trinity we found out the day of trial he didn't walk away from trinity he was fired or for progressive discipline and there were disciplinary records showing for months he was late for work and are now out of work on time and this was coming coming for a while so we had an explanation and that from the supervisor i mean would you agree it's pretty rare for a supervisor of someone who was fired to come in and testify on their behalf and corroborate what they said about the conditions and explained that although these warning said final notice that not went with it really meant and here's how it works i mean that was not credible absolutely absolutely fair the supervisor came in and said that so you're telling me though if that question if they if the story in that question is what we have to be leave then you're an employee at a at a workplace and you get two three warnings th this is your last chance here's the deal mean anything supervisor they don't mean anything that that's that's the way you look at the d d s counsel at the hearing at the testimony that we heard was that had you not taken that day out that he had previously been allowed to take who told he was going to be allowed to take that he would still have the job absolutely this is like you have to suggest that this policy and this is your final warning you think the worst that you can do as a parent be inconsistent not follow through it sounds asked how could how could the judge have been and i believe by i don't mean to misrepresent your your question but how could the judge who have disregarded this health issue what my gosh the holes as we got deeper into the trend the story got more and more written arguments are all arguments he had a for the transcript of his decisions forty pages where he went through each and every factor and remember the six o nine point two factors there's no single factor that every case is different and we look at all the different factors he hit every single one or we can disagree ms bishop can disagree each one of you can disagree with this factor another factor but is it clearly wrong is clearly wrong and this is what he said about the relocation in weighing all the evidence i think the circumstances and the reason for the intended relocation certainly are not there is no evil intent but i can't overly find that the job itself that miss this bishop's new husband has found is so overwhelmingly better than the old job or if it was only if it was the only job available such that it should be the remit the main reason for relocation necessarily is that the standard that you have to show that it's overwhelmingly better no but in this case when we have a job where they remember they have an actual pleading on file that says he's the paddock he's getting a job in in colorado that's s a better job well it doesn't pay as much twenty cents low twenty cents last but not as much over greed you disagree that he was already being groomed for w and how he left it for your job was a mess where you reference the statutory factors and of course that that's what we're guided by i have a couple of questions about comments made by the trial court when the trial court concluded that  would not have a significant impact will that it would have a significant impact and that it would change respondents relationship with the child is then a proper consideration  well it's a proper consideration i would i would be phrased it that way i guess that it's always going to change absolutely that's exactly what i was himself and that's my concern about that i think what the judge was saying was we have a child here who's who who was in roll school the father reached out to the school to find out about attendance and learned that he wasn't having a mom with a drone so the judge saying that there's going to be a change i mean i think that will change respondents relationship with the child i i i i i understand your point is that a proper consideration it's a proper consideration i wouldn't phrased it that way i agree with you the the child's relationship the father child relationship is going to change in this case i agree but the idea that your reference  this move might be better for the family and might have some positive impact on and i'm just wondering did the trial court hold the mom to some standard pants not articulated in statute i mean i'm not really sure what ok but let me jump to that ok we have a i'll answer your questions no i don't believe the judge held the mom to a different standard than he did the fathe case then it can never be awarded so it is completely overly dramatic come i mean certainly it should l certainly there are cases where there is a significant job benefit where or where a parent is not exercising their parenting time it certainly means there are most of the relocations are granted are distinguishable from this case by far that is it has an overly dramatic statement it's not true but let me let me get back your question about the of the trial judge help help a mother to remember this decision was i mean this wasn't a flippant decision he went through the factors in the one of the recent you're quoting from it is because he's speaking from the bench is it is measured as if he were to sat down and write it out now he's commenting he's telling us it's reaction to what he's heard what he certain argument what do you remember from the testimony ok but he does have a petition and the mother's petition alleges nine reasons for  for this relocation be going on all of those nine protect nine reasons five of them were come not proven a trial two of them are irrelevant to the trial court proceedings and that where where the uncle lived in colorado how often they didn't see him how long he'd been in colorado he did not know if the temporary relief hearing that the father had at least half the summers with the child he did not know that the the mother and the father who operated by the hand extended parenting time he didn't know whether the the trinity job was a union job or the best route was a job he said at that and this would play into the questions earlier he thought the benefits were complicated relationship with his older child which to answer your question justice should not have been answered should not have been answered it's a different back up what the factor is and six zero nine point two is we always forget this when people talk about somebodies getting more days than they had under the old point the factor is this history quality of each parents relationship with the child and specifically whether a parent has substantially failed or refused to exercise the parental responsibilities allocated to him or her under the parenting plan or allocation gesture there is no question from anybody everyone assumes asked that the father had are more parenting time and space that he was ordered to have it's not about counting days it's not about a quantitative it's not just about a quantitative difference and i agree that the judge in this case looked more at the qualitative difference than the quantitative difference even though he didn't use those words those are the those are th remember also and it didn't hit this earlier we were talking about the petition in her petition and she testified that for the first eighteen to twenty four months of the child's life mr leach wasn't involved in the life of the child and then we introduce evidence showing pictures date stamped pictures from that entire period that shows he was completely involved in child like in fact pleading was more definitive than i think i just said the pleading said the father had no relationship with a minor child for the first eighteen to twenty four months of the child's life absolutely this is an opinion back surely untrue and the judge heard evidence like this the judge should have and it's about this the judge should evidence about that  what happened with the leaving the job the trinity and and and he went through the petition as we went through the petition these things were not proven the these items were not proof did not make did not say anything about credibility but he did contradict the same statements in the petition was that there is no dispute that this father had a great relationship with the child a strong relationship there was no sea so he didn't say the mother he had done the investigation the father and this wasn't like a couple of pictures over eighteen or twenty four months this was a stack of pictures throughout that entire time that it was alleged that my client had no contact no relationship with the child so the six zero nine point two factors petition away for side remember that none of the factors were i don't know we spent a lot of time talking about trinity invested in mr cornell's jobs no factor should w speaks from from from memory on on on some of the issues and there is no question on the six o nine point two factors that the father had a strong relationship with  child and he substantially exercise far more parenting time around the responsibilities that were allowed into the parenting plan when we talk about the anticipated impact on the relocation of the child remember the court i says from previous question that they that they thought the court was waffling they were he the judge said he didn't know but we had amy layer of the child's preschool teacher talk about the social delays the child had the reason the child in preschool was to work on the social ways then the child was forced to go to go to preschool was about ultimately withdrawn or or asked to leave was it was kind of unclear which it was so the judge wasn't sure how this was going to impact this child this child didn't know and remember under under that under the case law it's ms bishop's responsibility to prove that relocation is in the best interests of the child by a preponderance of the  also remember we had i believe ten or eleven witnesses we had maternal we talk about family members in colorado and in illinois we have a maternal uncle his wife and children in colorado would be two and a half hours away from where miss bishop intends to relocate in illinois in the child's life testimony from these people in the child's life both maternal grandparents and gentle grandparents are grandparents with whom the child has resided through a significant portion of his life the maternal step graham fair parents are also in central illinois have a very close relationship with the child the paternal grandparents are in central illinois the eternal aunt and cousin with whom the child has a close relationship or in central illinois the father's fiancee who is extremely close the father's fiance's parents are not are they in laws yet not not in laws you have a very close to the child see the child every time the father sees them so twice a month and then the father's fiance's sister avery who is like the little boy's best friend these are all the people in in central and there's testimony that in two years for the maternal grandparents people may move to colorado awesome that's great in ten years the step maternal grandparents would move to colorado again awesome break but that's not where they are now and that's not what the statute as you look at the statute actually where are people right now where are the people we got to in colorado and one hundred  one other thing i wanted to address because it was mentioned in the reply believe in my brief i i was very specifically in the statement of facts where i talked about mr cornell being a boyfriend at the beginning and a husband after after august that was it was suggestive that was inappropriate for me to say that i certainly didn't mean it inappropriate it has no bearing on the case  petition and the fact that the petition was just quietly not group in court and the fact that the judge painstakingly went through the six o two point nine years and the fact that the judge's ruling was extensive i think meticulous he clearly listened to the evidence he clearly listened to the arguments even parroted back some of the arguments when he delivers opinion we understand that the mother would like the trial court and would like you to court could have issued a different rule but that's not enough it's not enough that you would waive these factors differently you have to find that the trial judge made that clear obvious error to find it against the manifest w earlier during the during the summer time the child would have been with him at a week at a time at times the parties there's no evidence that they split the summer time he did have more time in the summer but with our proposed parenting schedule in colorado he's going to have six weeks in the summer now he only has two weeks even if you say yes he's had some more time in the summer this is what she had proposed now with six weeks in the summer time every month with the child either in colorado or or in illinois so yes they do get more time there is no evidence in the record i submit that itself found that mr shear may not have been as active in the child's life for the first twelve eighteen months but the court was focusing only on the current situation then and i submit the core also erred by not looking at the whole picture by not looking at the demonstrated evidence or the evidence it established that that's important that for the first part of this child's life relationship with his child is important we know that we can see that but it's no different than any parent who has a regular schedule who only has four days out of them on who has summer time and who  looking at all the evidence with regard to extended family i think i've covered this the for itself even found that the extended family from this bishop's family was closer to his her father was already moving his business out to colorado so this wasn't a ten year plan the trial court didn't put much weight to put weight to the fact that hopefully or presumably the paternal grandparents would be closer so you have extended family and both sides and i think when looking to who was the primary person to care for madden what is the current circumstance and that is she's remarry she has a child and other child he found a great job in colorado there shouldn't have been any reason to preclude based on the evidence was against the manifest way the evidence to not allow them to move to colorado you know nothing would keep mr live here from moving to colorado nothing mr lived here from talking in the past about moving to other towns which certainly would have significantly