case the court had previously requested that we give some on that we discuss this matter on as a relates to in re the turnage j w which i will do here on to some extent and then i will continue on with the balance of my argument from there on this is a man this is a paternity action in champagne county illinois where paternity was established between and on the responding to the petitioner in this matter as it relates to a minor child percentage of her custody was on the stablished granted to his home on my client and after that point there was some visitation which was granted to the titian or in this matter in november two thousand and twelve the court entered an order and stated that visitation would be reserved as far as it related to on some holiday visitation in some summer time dissertation so what world or you think what we're discussing here relates to the  the court in two thousand and fourteen actually extending that visitation and whether use the proper standard and whether that standard was arbitrary capricious in looking at the case on in rep core base of the supreme court makes it determination that in a paternity action when you have it on when a not a story a parent just asking for visitation the proper test to use the best interest to enter which is more broad and one takes into account more factors then the six zero seven rebuttable presumption test which is the fine by the illinois with the marriage  the reason i believe that on the court i wanted to give a little bit of have some discussion or at least have a comment on this is this case is similar to to what the issues were in that case and in a lot of respects in that case on the court court actually took a look at the best interests of the child standard and looked at a broader school as far as what the actual what what actually to review online actually to look at in determining whether opposed to it tried to action and what the court contemplated was say with a paternity action there's more elements that you need to take in a factor when you're trying to make a determination as far as what kind of visitation there should be so in any case with the best interest to enter the burden is on the petition on the non custodial parent as it is in this case now in looking at the record and looking at the courts the termination from march of this year the course stated that in making the decision that the petitioner should have the visitation the court stated in the record that he didn't see it  court didn't see any harm to the child by giving the father additional hours of visitation which is what he was requesting in other words there was information in the right for here which seemed closer to standard than it would a best interest standard the court reviewed in looking at this the court stated well what's the harm in actually asking for this additional or giving th on the petitioner wasn't working at the time and there wasn't anything else to really consider and at some point in the record after that time the trial court stated that a responded mostly or wanted to present some further information regarding oh i'm having some testimony related to this whether it be in the form of another expert or otherwise he would consider it that gets to a burden shifting guardian ad litum or to necessarily make us to need a new edition but to be a parental fornicator in other words she was there on to determine the limited issues of whether there is whether the forty seven actual to deal with christmas time the summer biscay sion and then further to try to diffuse the tension between the parties this was something that in the trial court a motion  done partly because that had actually been a little more broad for the anticipation was the testimony would be more broad than simply dealing with the conflict between the parties and all  the other issue here is that on judy honest good hit in this matter did not actually make any sort of a story all i reach meant although she did testify to some of these factors but to the extent i don't get the case started from a presumption that additional time with the father would also merely be beneficial to the minor child and  of saying that well the presumption that additional time i don't believe that's what the law provides for with the best interests and again that starts to get to an issue of of there being able but a presumption that that's the case you know under the marriage act that might be true but i don't believe that that's the actual law dealing with turning there again as the court stated it has to look at more broad circumstances more factors in trying to make a determination on whether visitation should be granted and to what school and whether it's in the actual best interests of the child so it's your position if i'm understanding you that the but our argument here is the factors that the court used in looking at that and the way that the court actually or phrase this as part of its decision sounds more like a remarkable presumption in the spatter isn't that what it is  in case the court has to look at that best interest they enter in order to make that determination as far as whether there should more visitation in this falls so that's what we're saying and then again too when the co determination here that you have to get this extra visitation i mean it doesn't hurt that if the home petitioner father wasn't working the court should be granting it the testimony showed in the actual trial record that the father was indeed working during some of the time that he was asking for the additional visitation so from a standpoint of having the maximum involvement with the child that's one thing but there was a little bit more than that that something very kind of testified after the fact after actually going into court and stating hey look he was actually working on those on that friday for two hours right like the whole  suddenly have is you know grandparent visitation in these circumstances and again when the court is basing a decision on the additional hours when he's not working the time date and then there's something in the i think you look at what the responded mother had stated i think you look at the conflict that was between parties i believe that you look at some of the other you know some of the other fit things that the father had testified to  example when they responded when the petitioner father was asked what was your protocol or what is your plan of action when the child became sick he said he he didn't know who the child can never become sick in his presence now this is somebody who had over a several years period and had visitation for some time to say that there's no old determination that if the child gets sick he didn't know what actually what he was going to be doing that doesn't wise to  local of serious and dangerous but it is something that i think this is a factor that gore should be taken into consideration now as far as you know what you know he made sure that somebody was always around it something that you know in looking in some legal or promising questions here i think the court should have taken into consideration as far as the best interests now to that extent i do i also believe here that there is some issues as far as the actual arbitrar that decision he admitted that he had no specific reason for watching but dish no visitation time with a minor child that he didn't understand what what the harm to the child by giving the father the additional hours when he's not working does not clear by the issue so i think that the real question here and i think it sort of opens it up here is was the right burden and was the right standard actually used at the time the court h actually made this decision  and there wasn't really a lot of testimony in there about how the actual visitation would hope the child certainly there were spotted mothers on context that certainly her concerns were not necessarily addressed in the matter so our position here on long story short is we believe that you know the additional visitation that has been granted by the trial court should be reversed and remanded and should be given some consideration with the  fairly well i think the court may have missed what was stated actually continuing on with the visitation this is more or less something we're trying to expand it temporary order of visitation to a permanent order here believe there's you know only looking at the wife of the case is that it's necessarily something i think that it should that's something that should be remanded to just make sure that we're using the word analysis here because i think it puts a little bit too if this was an initial visitation case the court nationally the case came out of my office famous for my take us and this court reversed the trial court and the supreme court reversed this court and the supreme court's holding now is when we have a we're basing on status if we're looking at visitation we have a presumption when you're married that visitation is in the children's best interests so the burden now becomes because story all parents show that visitation is not in the best interest of the child and if the custodial parent wants to deny or restrict this is haitian why not the serious and agent standard in our case here we had a visitation wednesdays from two three to five thirty and this was our petition to modify that visitation to increase the time based on the wednesday and the sun  every other friday and every wednesday my position was that that was permitted visitation schedule in place i believe and i may be wrong to judge and i'll test both because i think on the if it's a modification it's the same standard modify visitation it doesn't matter whether it's under the parents or jack or under the divorce act because the person seeking modification has the burden to prove that additional visitation is in the child's best interests so either way with that this is now will not bring their temporary order or whether we're operating it under the permanent order the standard is the same for the parents is action the presumption is on the person in the parent before i get to the best interests announced this is that if i'm going to turn the action if i found my initial attorney action visitation i have the burden if i have i'm a paternity action and i've titian to modify the burden i still have the burden and so the only distinction in terms of burden is when you're married when you're married there's a presumption in your favor visitation is the best interest that when you modify and you're married there is presumption that you now have to show reasons basically my client had every wednesday off he testified to the court he also testified that he would be available for the child there were some issues whether the grandparents were with him when he was working but he told the court he would be available to the to have the child for the entire day and so basically one week when he had just wednesdays he would have an additional five hours of visitation he also told the court his head is work schedule allows him to be on fridays and would be able to care for the child every other friday at ten am so we were seeking additional visitation every other week of twelve hours because we had the wednesday and we also had the friday and so the russian becomes is that additional visitation in the child's best interests so right this is a young child so he's trying to marry me thinking about a year and a half so there weren't any disheveled transitions that were going to be made between the parties because we've just increasing the time but find the same day who was appointed by the court and previous counsel to term and whether or not this additional visitation would be in the child's best interests child better than the two two hours he had on wednesdays and the only evidence that was presented by the defendant and i asked her why she felt that this edition of visitation w believe no additional visitation would be in the child's best interests and she could no expert testimony to that of that effect and even dr oz good testified because she had eleven hours of visitation with my client  an indicator that it was in the child's best interests we had expert testimony that they had a loving close relationship this would allow them to continue to more and my client's position is that to have the additional five hours every that concerns that she felt were not borne by the evidence she didn't present any evidence of the event increased anxiety and stress and when you're looking at visitation for a young child you're looking at how also how many transitions does this very quickly in taking a war i believe that the court is correct this was a temporary visitation order from two thousand and twelve that wasn't a permanent order which was entered by the court the court had actually entered that order contingent on good becoming involved in the case and making some determinations for is what the on what the visitation would be during some of those limited periods i would say here that you know  back and forth from people the visitation is something that is occurring at the oban a play station off the exchanges that's correct so and that's going on on a regular basis and i mean the amount of  ink there most of animosity there is quite high the court didn't take into account any of that conflict when he made this the terminations neither did dr oz did when she tried to determine whether this extended visitation would create any more animosity between the parties which would actually cause there to be some or on some more more after effects now as far as the visitation that's been happening our contention is the visitation that the petitioner is getting is adequate at this point it's certainly something that it's a young child he is getting the visitation at this point and it's something good considering the issues that animosity between the parties may consider the standard is something that i think that the court should have taken a little bit more the court should look more at what they ensure the best interest they entered would be and i believe that did speak about in the record specific instances at least in march where there they had the exchanges of the visitation and there had been some contention between the parties all and of the fact there was this is a child that four years old you have to look at and i think this goes back to a best interest standard under on the paternity of to it w you have to look at the tone of the circumstances here and the tone to the circumstances are we have a inaction where right now there is visitation which is occurring it's not really been shown in consideration of all the context the billion for mission we have that it would be in the best interest of the minor child well that is true and that actually did come up where the one thing the court had requested was  that mr that the petitioner would actually be there to you know facilitate the transfer of all but at this point the grandparents have been imported i believe the reason for that was was because well i think that in any case that detention is continued for whatever reason so on the exchanges have been continuing in the court continue to add the exchanges they have to the actual you know at the police station itself i don't i think that that's been a situation that's been focus should be on whatever attention the child feels and if the child feels tension it is borne pon that child by one pair of the the child does create the tension i find it distasteful and unseemly that the exchange has to take place at a police station and if i were to try out there which i'm not i would be tempted to arrive at the visitation exchange place the jail the police station and if one party arch their eyebrows are found i would not only stop visitation i would remove custody from the custod and i'm presuming that your client's present in court and i don't want her to feel that i'm speaking to her i'm speaking to both parties or i'm speaking to the grandparents and whatever judge brogdon said and i've read the wreck that part of the record i would have said it in much more straightforward fashion and in much tried to have been much more direct and much more emphatic nobody cares whether these parents like each other nobody cares what has happened fact past all we ought to be caring about is how it affects the child and can you imagine being in kindergarten and explaining to your classmates when you go on a field trip that's where i can see my mother that's where i could see my dad when we  know we go to the police station because that's where we have to get together we can't get together anywhere else because somebody might be it man what a wonderful future that child it's a