are three issues that are the subject of the appeal that i would like to be discussing this morning those three issues include first whether or not every miracle that was granted by judge saved was appropriate in the best interest of the four minor children the second of which is whether or not if the court determines that a removal should be affirmed whether the parenting schedule was reasonable in a light of the circumstances that exist both in arkansas is well as my client circumstances and work requirements here in illinois the third of which involves a modification of the marital settlement agreement in regard to granted was that the children would spend every third weekend with their father my client is a fireman and so as a result there of he has a unique schedule he works twenty four hours on and forty eight hours on there seems to substantial testimony in regard to having some ability after so many hours of credit being able to take some personal time if it's approved and if there are others who can cover his shop but for the most it is twenty four hours on it forty eight hours on he is guaranteed almost every weekend but in order to make the regular visitation schedule work it has to be on that regimented schedule but the problem is there would not be utilizing transportation and because of the cost issues if transportation was going to be a contribution to expense was going to be required by my client my client indicated that he would most likely  transportation because of the cost of the airfare for four children you know the likelihood that a parent would have to accompany so more likely than not whatever transportation or exchange it would require ground transportation the travel schedule however yes and this is a parenting schedule and i know these cases are difficult because we can find any case in the fourth district really to support ever be able to deny removal and it is very much fact based this particular case i think is you need not only because of the work history for father and his occupation is fired but also the company for which the stepfather runs out of his home but more importantly i believe the impact in the interaction that my client had his children the guardian in his report identified in the testimony was clear that even though my client was a fireman that on and on average there was five out of seven days where he had interaction with his children now that didn't mean that he had five overnights out of every seven but the testimony was that he had turned it gem down aspect events gymnastic practices he went on having is with the children he showed up at open houses at school it was actively involved with two out of the four children in regard to softball both in regard and attending and so the reality is walking for children out of l a noire and removing them to arkansas even if you afforded them the schedule that we were requesting it would never be a replacement schedule but the question then becomes would it have been a reasonable schedule to foster the relationship that he had with the children when they were here we believe the answer to that theory is no it would not have  southern illinois and those are your choices the option is not whether or not we're staying here in bloomington i think that that really creates a difficulty for for children for children when as of today's date are fourteen eleven eight and five obviously there were a little younger at that at the time of the trial that as of today's date based on the birth dates and the record there fourteen eleven eighteen fine now this is a mother who said you can move to a row a place you've never been to you know nothing about because i have the ability to move you within the state which i don't believe is completely true these folks have a joint parenting agreement that was entered on april eighteenth of two thousand and eight mother was a residential act however that removed required that the parties were to come first and agree on education moral religious standards of conduct training travel health care now what we see enjoy parenting agreements they ha a great so i don't believe she could have unilaterally moved them to k row without reaching an alternative because the taishan schedule which the court would have had to put its stamp of approval on otherwise had she had down th area that is strict it didn't restrict whereabouts as to where she could live then obviously as the court is aware that that's a difficulty as well because too many restrictions in a joint parenting agreement in regard to  answer your question i guess in short no there was no stay if you notice when you look at their backward justice players you will see that in fact before the written order i believe was injured on the visitation there was are radio notice of appeal pending the provided to the trial court that he was the technological go to guy all of the work that he did was found out of his home that was his partner reported that his partner technologically set up so that these children could have lacking in communication with their father email communication with their father and that was going to be a substantial replacement for the face time that these children were going to get with the father in illinois however he testified also out that's not a good enough replacement for the was the most face time i have to get with my clients and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to travel two times a year from bloomington illinois to go to arkansas or to seminars or conferences and other areas of the state to meet my business obligations the court is finding was simply that he didn't have enough evidence about business to dispute what mr mcnabb said which was i'm not moving i'm not going to try moving i'm not going to move the pac the legible it but that to play me because i'm not going to put my business at risk i'm not going to consider it i'm not going to do it i don't believe it would work and my position is your leaders if you look at the case law now there's mr may have to tell his partner i'm not going to be in partnership with you anymore the court wasn't any better of a position than mr mckay up to determine whether it would work or not the g a o in his report to the court specifically said after speaking factor that the court should consider in this particular case i don't believe that the court considered the g l as recommendation and all there is no where friends to the g l in regard to judge suits ruling it all except to say that are in regard to the findings made a recommendation to the or they've concerns to the court in regard to you know whether it's been postured to the children you know the pressure that they judgeship wasn't required to follow the recommendation of the g a o but i do believe it is required to consider it and that a lack of consideration of the report in light of the ruling certainly it has leaves me on but nowhere in his report does he have sas any of the recommendations at the g a o regarding the children's preferences you know nowhere does he have sas the cia under best interests requires we consider the children you know their acclimation the whole school community where their families are all of which were identified by the g l favoring the denial of removal all of which were provided by the evidence the only family in arkansas of the other family of support system or he lost and children are in the bloomington normally area that includes family both for mr gholson as well as the children's mother all of which there was testimony that these the owners the o calls the grandmothers the grandfathers actively involved in these children's lives seeing them on a regular basis good relationships so what has happened by the removal is that only have these children been removed from their father resemble visitation schedule that he was given under the order which the case i says every other weekend at a minimum that would be an unrestricted visitation schedule so she would it to the children that was the option but those from the legal option s i think it's inappropriate to tell minor children that those are your choices when those are not your legal choices and then j l tried to obviously share with the children what be your shoes but only to the extent that it would be the realtor because the they may have the settlement agreement said that the property would be sold and that she would live there with the children until it was sold and that she would be responsible for the expenses and i'm summ g the language bennett said that they she would be responsible for the expenses except for the expenses they agreed up by related to the cell of the marital president so my client already understood it i'm not doing well the testimony was he's been in this same appetising this for over twenty plus years he has lived in his area for that length of time his customers and move to illinois continue to conduct his business on the with the computer and internet in the face whatever represent the terminology i'm not really up with the tech stuff joint parenting unit they have the option instead of saying miles to say you can't go more than fifty when there is a condition that they could have restricted it because they knew the parties the children would be moving from the base home and that was in a texas docket entry the restriction of saying that you can't move but you can't if you move more than fifty miles from the area you will share transportation that is in look on the web pages for walls it says you really can't compare the whole state of arkansas to the whole state of illinois but that's only because that was presented and it was it when i asked him about what are the conditions of mr penfold relative and find your home he wasn't aware that one of the parties had buy a home from  but he did modify with respect to first of all in the original property settlement agreement my point was to have the opportunity to stay in the home paid utilities pay the mortgage  starting january one of ten to the house so they will also share in the tax deductions so it was of slight modification and they are still going to share in the proceeds of the house sol basis so it was a limited and i think what's with in the courts to suppression because they are still sharing some expenses in the agreement they're still sharing the proceeds and accordingly i think it was in the discretion diction based upon one the the parties actively participating in the proceedings which were inconsistent with the merits of the prior vote and two that the party did not slowly for example his testimony from the trial he repeatedly said that i am willing to consider moving i'm not going to have to prove my children i'm not going to move them from arkansas specifically he says i decided on page twenty three of my report that i give the poor rich approximately twelve sites for the record where he says he will three of my great idea of the court decides for the volumes he he blatant fully in court said i am not going to do it i'm not going to consider it it is not an option i won't do it he also is my partner we work out of my home marc is the creator service provider an individual who maintains the website for the company marketing mark mcmahon he says i that chris is the closest thing to the county executive he's the hourly daily weekly and monthly contact for each and every customer was meeting mark i'm the person who does the art director designer and graphic artist work in his own words on the website and i've quoted i'm a guy of the design and designer and graphic artist absolutely no no absolutely not done here in arkansas they have been there for approximately two academics and asters and i absolutely believe and i know the court is considering the evidence at the time of trial but i am approximately you know nine months in arkansas and the summer with her father if we just as a practical matter apply common sense it can happen made in six to nine months i kept on the fourteen