very familiar with all of the factors dealing with removal has been around for quite a while and this forty has addressed those as well this is not or did very little if anything during the entire proceedings of this case from two thousand and nine when the parties separated groovin the present day to enhance her life work of child's life in any way except moving to texas a background of which was brought forth in the first removeable hearing was his not her own right i guess you could say in madison macugen county when she was in college with her mother and stepfather her stepfather was in the military they traveled quite quite frequently while she was growing up her and her brother remained when her stepfather put retired they the mother and stepfather moved to texas it will not remain in madison county to know that school her brother remained in high school in madison county didn't move to texas tell seven years later it really proper finally got married of course and are their family april did nothing but sit and wait out the time she could to file another petition to remove she admitted in the second hearing that she stated on under oath to answer honestly i don't feel i should have to sacrifice my time with my son to get an education she's moving to better family unit because of the economic viability of being able to live with a period and have expenses taken care of well you're educating yourself versus trying to to remove the child based on the fact that i can go live with a parent i can attend school i don't have to work she did all of those things while remaining in the coop and county for four years she looked for jobs only in staunton illinois it within the city limits of stolen illinois she did not look at any other schools in the area springfield is not that far from from the cuban county where she rock where she resides and there is a school with a degree program she wants and it's also i think very important to realize that she switched her degree she was at a site you edwards fell for teaching to quit that when she had her child and didn't go back to school she wants to start over with something totally new and because that's what i want to do it's everything is about what she wants to do not necessarily what should happen when you have a third party a child involved in this where the father has exercised his visitation he has he has done what he can as a father the child and the mother have resided in the marital presidents while he resides with his parents to meet the continuity so that they can all have the  good supervised visitation restriction lifted during this period of time during the first part of the case two thousand and nine through two thousand and ten he was seeing a counsellor he was on medication that through i believe two thousand and eleven in two thousand and eleven he was released from care by that doctor but not cut off his medication his medication was discontinued that it was no longer necessary  and no further appointments with the counsellors or the psychologist were recommended or needed unfortunately that's not that hasn't been good enough for ms not her and the court i have sent my client back on several occasions what the court wants according to the order and in according to what ms notter has requested it's the doctor to say there is no concern that not there that nothing is going to happen the doctor cannot make that determination i mean there's there's been a shooting here this morning in down into near jacksonville nobody can guarantee that i'm not saying that's what my client would do i'm just saying that a doctor  psychologist will not give a guarantee that he is one hundred percent perfect that there is absolutely no can't do that for any of this patient's right but your client why only thing would be court saying plea lift this restricted or give me more experience here because or let's have a trial period of you know that has has no there's been no motion filed that has been addressed that every almost every  appearance i guess you could say with her ms not hers various attorneys we've discussed this i have discussed this with with counsel and what not my client has gone back i've discussed with the counselor what they're looking for and the counsellors told me i'm not going to give you any guarantees i won't give you a guarantee the law is not going to do anything to this child if i were to see her i don't know but he does not mean treatment because not need medication that's what he says he have to start over no the counselor provided a letter of medical records saying that he was no longer around or that needing a treatment and his medication was discontinued i don't believe it was that or so why did he need new petition because we were informed that there would be no he had to go back the court basically indicated until i get something saying from the doctor that there's no concern he's going to remain with supervised visitation he is not not to make excuses he's a very simple person both of the parties are fairly simple people they are not my client is not well educated he graduated from high school went straight to work he does basically he doesn't understand he doesn't understand why he has to keep going back to the doctor when the doctor says you know the big he's trying to do what he can but it just hasn't hasn't been fulfilled it hasn't been that big of an issue in the sense that he's been residing with his parents so that that has helped he doesn't mind residing with this parents if his ex wife is in the marital residence of the child and the residen her head basically or in her second petition all of the things she had done during that two year period she applied to schools in texas she applied to jobs mainly only in the city on this if the second hearing that the reason she had got a job or applied to school in any of the by state areas was because she wants to move to texas so her existence for the last four years has been to buy this year for schooling and what her prognosis whatever the degree program entails what she will need to do i will be filing a petition to review to remove all my concern as well as my client's concern based on her own testimony and her own beliefs that all she's wanted to do since the divorce began was to get down to texas she has really no incentive to find a job in this area she says she's going to she's going to texas she's going to i assume i'll find a job down there she's not she hasn't wanted to remain in the area close to where the child has grown up and where the child's family has to go to school or work i guess she c years of this child's life where he sees his father one week in the spring six weeks in the summer and a little bit fall and he that the child's used to being with him on wednesdays and every other weekend it's i understand that the court can consider very specters in the cases that have been cited by both parties most of the cases have a lot of removal but the fact basis on each of those cases are different where either the custodia parent was remarried and the new husband was transferred or lived somewhere else or there was family along with the ability to remain at home i believe it was maine where the mother wanted to move to florida where her mother live d but she also had a job in florida and the father was a made enough money that he could fly back and forth almost on a monthly basis another case i believe it was that he was either cretin or four or was where the mother colorado to be with her fiance she worked bar in a bar at night three nights a week the father saw the child every other saturday sunday there wasn't the continuity that this child has ms not or made a big deal about how the child in texas will be a head start that's where the child was in the head start program in mccook in county the child's move is just to make her might easier she's an adult she's a parent it would be great to say i'm done i don't like family law but i'm not going to take my life and turn everybody in my family have sight known so i can go do something differently i'm doing what adults do i got a degree i got a job i'm doing she sees me she's doing only what she needs to do to get to texas there are schools all over st louis springfield all around the area that she going to going to opposite i believe so there is nothing that has changed from the first denial the dial of the first petition to remove nothing has changed except that the child got older and she still did absolutely nothing except apply for minimum wage jobs all around the start an area none of them were outside the city limits she did absolutely nothing except go back and forth the taxes her mother resided with her in the in county the entire time that that this these petitions were on file even after the first remove a petition was denied her mom didn't return to texas live she remained with april the the facts that have i guess yes that you could certainly say that the court looked at the facts and decided this correctly i guess that means that any parent who wants to move just needs to sit around as long as it takes for a court to say ok you haven't found a job you haven't found you haven't gotten school yet might be kind of rough on you to have to work and go to school like a lot of adults do but don't worry about it you can go on and move in you know you want she's an exhibit the court viewer exactly what she wanted by sitting there doing nothing she is an adult she did nothing differently except the but she did last in the two years after the first  stand here in the beginning i believe she wanted to take this child from his father i don't believe that now but i believe that her motives are selfish self centered and only to suit her purpose she is not looking at how close this child is to his father and how this will affect the child she is basically she is going from a home that she was supported in to another home that she supported going to school again and maybe i just i'm bitter that as an adult i think she should take responsibility for set up get a job go to school get student loans go to school you can do they had without moving to texas and if her mother her mother stayed for four years sure her mom didn't want to stay she wanted to go back down to her property you know that her deceased husband had purchased in texas she could have done that she never did the whole the the crux of this is the fact that the judge's ruling is there the judge's ruling is against the evidence or the factual basis because the facts were the exact same as they were to earth plus years earlier when we have when we have the hearing the first time i go to the child's life was the same the child will go to school a head start in texas will be with his grandmother he in this area in illinois the child went to head start was with his grandmother as well as his other set of grandparents mr nasr has five siblings that regularly none of these people can travel or have ever traveled except for one sister who is going to florida to disney and things like that with her family these this family is rooted in macau right or wrong they don't have the means to see if he's allowed to be in texas they will see him when he's here three times a year and ask the child gets older if the child remains in texas six weeks over the summer is going to be even more difficult if the child you know he's only five now is not even a kid helping kindergarten starting this fall if he does sports or does anything that would not enable him to come for of the certain break that would cut robert's family out even more w been working for the last two years if she had done something to it when when another she applied for jobs but didn't take them because they were minimum boy i don't know that mr pinocchio probably answer that all i know jobs unfortunately stock is a very depressed area at this point in time and has been hit and we there was record made her job opening signs in edwardsville yes it is about thirty minutes from s she didn't want to drive thirty minutes because her car wasn't very good i we've all i don't know about your personal lives but i drove a really really bad car in law school and i worked i worked two jobs went to school that's what that's what reasonable people do when they have responsibilities she has not taken any responsibility she's got her ex husband support her her mother support her and asked she says words out of her own mouth i do not feel i should have to sacrifice my time with my son to get an education i'm sorry that's just i  attorneys from chicago what took three days to put on a case for removal of four years ago but that we put on our case that they opt in i disagree with her when she says nothing has changed since the first hear things have changed since the first hearing i think the age of a child makes a difference in terms of travel it's hard to travel with an infant in the back seat of your car it's a little bit easier to travel with a five year old who can talk you to explain things  n so you can't you know have to give it a five year old as much attention as you do an infant so i think that's a factor of i think he said that well in the in the visitation provisions of the judgment there are provisions for m notter to remove the supervision and the idea that no psychologist or psychologist will guarantee that he would never harm a child is a red herring nobody asked for that there are provisions in there that he can  go through but the fact of the matter is he didn't seem buddy until just weeks before the hearing at the date of the deposition i believe he made his first appointment so he didn't do anything to remove that supervision head eat those  or he's completed and his medication is going to be even reduced or eliminated i don't believe that letter was ever made part of the record i don't believe that's part of the record it might have been referred to during testimony but but i would have let that psychologist apparently did say i don't need treatment anymore i just knew that that happened since the judgment was hedren giving coming up with a with a way for him to remove the supervision y then the other thing is again i'm not sure you know this was a whole new hearing it's a judge made this decision based on the facts are produced at this second hearing ah but the court also found also mentioned that in the first hearing she had  would take her to graduate and she testified without that contradiction that a person in that position could do with that training could make about sixty thousand dollars a year out of school which is wonderful in this should be a valuable we're not his mother's is eighteen years now probably eighteen months away from from making a good living for him and op mr nutter has more overnights than he would have they had under the judg five overnights he got fifty two and it and i agree that i mean i'd rather have my children every week ah then three times a year summer christmas and spring break but nevertheless  miss that says if that's a standard then we could never allow removal except for neighboring states st louis or iowa that kind of thing because we're always going to congregate the visitation into larger lives but spread out  over longer periods of time u could come back to illinois bob she wants to stay texas off and picked up when she graduates i presume i don't know what would happen i presume the court would question her as to put effort she's made to find employment and  granted a petition to remove and then a couple of years later possibly at the outside three years but let's say two years twenty one it does go to review it say where you want to bring the child back how does that happen if we're talking about permanency in continuity i don't know and i don't know you and your your client would be saying no no you can't make me do that i established my life he or she gets employment in fact i just don't i don't understand i understand her views to maintenance review is to remove all seems to me to be a fairly permanent that could be with you i would say let's say she drops out of school something a better nature and doesn't doesn't continue to do what she said she would do i think the court would be entitled review to that point can say this you know we gave you the opportunity to do this so in the answer's no i don't have a case where it's been brought back but the point is if she doesn't carry through with her plans there's a mechanism for the court to to look at that if she does  i would agree with you that probably continuity and stability and all of that would be in favor of staying in texas i would agree would be difficult it would be strange circumstances would for a court ordered her to come back after she graduated and has i just touch on a couple of things with respect to the court case that mr panetta is correct and what that stated that it would only be maybe a by state type move except those facts were quite different that that mom was  gauged to be married she worked nights was not home during the evenings with her child she shared a bedroom with the child in illinois moving to florida she would live and have the child would have his own room she would have her own room and she would marry the father only saw the child from on saturday or saturday i believe it was nine am to sunday at six pm now whether visitation time in fact i believe if i remember facts correctly  father had wanted the mom to get an abortion and didn't want to have anything to do with the child early on and it wasn't until the request of child support that you actually got the visitation and his visitation was more than that that's all the exercise  the letter from the doctor was provided to the chicago council and possibly mr ballen her first attorney during this case and it wasn't any guarantee it was stated that he's been released from my and no further appointments necessary or something to that effect that hasn't been good enough so i've been there ever it is in the record from i believe the first hearing and you think it was  she was credible she admitted that she only sat around for two years because she wanted to move to texas i believe her but i don't believe that the quirks of allow someone to take the child from from the family that he has because you want to she doesn't have a fiance she doesn't have a job waiting she has a school waiting but there are sanford brown schools closer and that that she could go to she could move to st louis  and work and do what other people do i hope what will be the difference between living with them or having your finances taken care of versus a full scholarship apparently that is willing to provide for her so that she can go to school with a parent without incurring debt and while there be a guest here or convenient care schooling  support because the child would be removed from the family that he knows and if his best interests i don't believe her being served by basically being ripped from the family that he's known his entire life is this record show supervise how is it that you do continue or there's your relationship with grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins if you're only getting supervised visitation with your father but it's with both parents or any of this family with his parents and then they are there or other for other immediately or providing a super very correct he might go to a sister or someone's house like that yes and that is that hitting on another thing with respect to the review that