petition was filed in may of two thousand and twelve the mother should have been required to show serious and dangerous to the child's health welfare wellbeing as a basis for modification of custody but she was not did not at that point in  time less than one month later the statute was amended i'm talking about in six ten of the i m d m a was amended to include two additional provisions paragraphs f and g which have to do with military ones and how that affects the the  service members contact with the children and his custody and visitation when a second petition was filed to modify custody by the mother in this case in december of two thousand and twelve when that was filed  mother again should have been required to show serious and dangerous now keep in mind that the original judgment of dissolution was entered in september of two thousand and ten the first petition was filed before the two year period  will the only reason i bring it up is because it results in an order that was entered on a temporary basis that was used by judge cast in her final decision as a primary basis for modifying custody ins and so as a result then at hearing in april of two thousand thirteen she enters an order which modifies custody and the standard for modification of custody is under six ten requiring by clear and convincing evidence that there has been a substantial change of circumstances that is in the best interests of children and i go through in great detail laying out all the facts but there's a few things that i want to point out with respect first and foremost with respect to but a couple of things jump out first of all with respect to paragraph six ten g s which had been in effect then at that point in time because remember this was passed effective june first two thousand and thirteen and it kind of intervene between the time of the initial petition in may of two thousand and twelve i'm sorry i said june first of two thousand and thirteen i mean two thousand and twelve the initial petition was filed in may of two thousand and twelve a second petitions filed in december of two thousand intervening the meantime became effective intervening in it with respect to those is the statute that addresses military deployments and one of the things that the that the courts pacifically cited was unil unilateral actions on the part of the father in this case the unilateral use of the memorandum of understanding that he submitted and the removal to missouri during the deployment of two thousand and twelve paragraphs six ten  appears to address these issues both of those things were done by the father in this case as a result of his deployment and the purpose behind gee it's a brand new statute it's only about a year and and four months old the purpose behind g is not t penalize the service member in a situation where his deployment where he has custody and his deployment interferes with his ability to do all of the things that he's supposed to do in fact in paragraph g it specifically states that a failure to comply with the court's orders on custody visitation or parenting time the items that the court cited as part of its basis for modifying custody didn't even relate to going so far as the father not  allowing custody or visitation on the part of the mother in fact he offered the mother to continue to have not only her regular visitation but all the visitation that she was entitled to under her original judge and his offer to do that shows flexibility on the part of the father as well as the intent of g which is not to penalize a father who's in a situation like this where he has custody and he's deployed not penalize him with respect to problems associated with visitation during his deployment and that i think was was part of what the court as did if you look take a look at the the the court's order with respect to it the mother's burden of proof a trial is by clear and convincing evidence and if anything and i go through the facts that are along enunciated and found by the court and and laid out in the testimony if anything the father's cases probably stronger at the time of the modification hearing than it was time of the initial cost the reason i say that is first of all the mother never got any counseling associated with the sexual assault that she was involved in back in two thousand and eight which was a trial in two thousand and ten she had she all of the counseling that she received predated that initial judgment of dissolution and september two thousand and ten bill last time she underwent counseling associated with that was in august of two thousand her own testimony from the stand and she hadn't had any counseling since that point secondly she had not been involved with these children at all literally was completely on involved in the central ignored them for a thirty month period between the time the father got them in december of two thousand and nine and then they enter a judgment of dissolution in september of two thousand and ten all the way up and twelve she shows up in illinois and now wants to be mother of the year and i think that's what this that's the biggest problem with the decision in this case whatever her her arguments order the of the only thing that she did with respect to that or the testimony of both parties is on the form to be filled out there's a block there that he checked saying do not release information to the other parent box he didn't check that one but then you're also criticizing her for not getting him well that would have only occurred after she got here to illinois she got no information up to that point in time and she never testified that she made any attempts to get information from the school and was denied in fact the information that she did get was provided by my client even though he had no obligation to do so he sent her bags of paperwork every time she did come to visit on the six to seven occasions so she didn't make any effort up until the time that that form was filled out and she apparently didn't make any effort after that because there is no testimony by the mother that she was ever denied information by the school the the the limit of their of her argument with respect t issue is oh he checked that block and that's it but she never goes beyond that and explains how she met she called the school she tried to get information from the school she never did any of that is there any money in the record with  he said he did it because she was not local and they wanted a local point of contact so he put his girlfriend's name down and then check the box need to be spoken to the school princip cool i didn't try this case but the jail put nothing in her report and said nothing on the stand with respect to she with with respect to the mother having made attempts to talk to the principal and being denied information she put nothing in her report about that she simply said she had talked to the principal i'm talking about the jail now and she didn't go she didn't labrat beyond doubt about what anything the principal might have said with respect to the mother attempting to get information of contacts and by the mother's own testimony she said i just figured if there was something to be told i would be told by the dad and she by her own testimony should make any efforts to contact the school so if it was a mistake on my client's part it was a harmless  because she never made any efforts to get the information anyway so it wouldn't make any difference now if she had pushed that issue then that might open a whole different set of facts but that's not our facts then with respect to the next thing i want to talk about is one of the issues that that has been raised is with regard to these text messages that were sent by my client and used as part of the court's fine finding with regard to show attempting to show that my client is somehow uncooperative that the father is somehow uncooperative with respect to all this these text messages occurred between february of two thousand and twelve in may of two thousand and twelve that is specifically cited in the ports judgment february to may of two thousand and twelve not keeping in mind that she shows up in illinois in late april two thousand and twelve and then files an immediate petition for temporary custody and within a couple weeks after that keep in mind what happened just prior to february two thousand and twelve the father just got information that he was being deployed for six months he relays that to the mother the mother than scrambles to get orders here in illinois and they both know both of those things the father told the mother that he had was being deployed the mother told the father that she was coming to illinois so the tenor of the text messages are that she's going to come dylan away and take the children while he's deployed that's why he was angry with regard to the text messages that were specifically limited to that very good may two thousand and twelve period is because what's going on during this time is she hasn't had anything to do with the kids for over two years and now she's going to swoop in and take the children from him because he's being deployed that's why he was upset and that's why the tenor comes out as if somehow he is being uncooperative with respect to the mom keep in mind the mother during this time period really didn't show any interest in these children of all for two and a half years she ignored them she didn't have any she had the six seven visitations i talked about she didn't have any contact with either school out there in las vegas or the schools here in illinois she didn't ask about any of the eyepiece even though she knew the vegas i existed and she should have thought then that there might be an illinois feel she had to do was asked and by the way some of that was in the paperwork that he did provide her and then lastly no cars no presents no gifts no information did she convey to the children during this two and a half year period either and all of a sudden then she comes in on her orders to transfer here to eleanor in late april of two thousand and twelve just before literally he's ready to get on a plane for six months and she wants to take the children she's basically a stranger to these children at this and she convinces the trial judge at that point in time that they would be in the best interest of the children that they're serious and danger meant to the children by virtue of the fact that he would he told her prior to that i'm going to send them to my parents house but you still get all of your visitation and then some even though he told her that then perkins she still uses that as a basis for saying serious dangerous now a couple of the things that i want to point out with respect to the mother's lack of interest in these kids first of all she doesn't tell the father she makes she makes some serious judge mental errors with regard to the children the first  testified to by trial lieutenant mcclanahan who sexually assaulted me now this is her saying this who sexually assaulted me has been threatening me and the children and her that at this point in time in two thousand and nine they would have been five three two maybe i know the oldest one would have been five but the other two younger ones would have been than younger than that but she doesn't tell  the father when he comes to pick up the children when he got through with his t d y where he had gone to school etc he doesn't tell the father that time oh by the way this guy has threatened the children and i think that is an indication of the mother's lack of interest in both the care and the safety of these children mother from the time of their birth until december of two thousand not they had been with her only without without mr campbell's presence from the time that he was deployed which was in two thousand and eight in may of two thousand and eight through august of two thousand and eight and then he went to san antonio which is how he did in december of two thousand and eight and she she kept the children all the way until december of two thousand  she had been the victim of a sexual assault and she was being held in utah under for the criminal proceedings that were going on you talk that time she felt that she was being threatened with being threatened and as the mother of the children she wanted to get them out of that situation and therefore she asked that mr hamel take the children in december of two thousand and nine when he moved to las vegas and he was transferred to now us air force base in moscow the testimony shows that at that time she was about a six hour drive from las vegas and that she visited as often as she she testified that she went several times while they were in las vegas and then the divorce decree was drafted by job outside of her career field in order to move to n y c to be near her children miss wenzel testified that she always asked how the children were doing and the response that she would get w court found in view changes or comes one that the that the children and both parents were living in the same save the same numbers for the first time honestly since two thousand and eight that the children were subject to individual education testified that he was subject to deployment and to be wise as obvious as that part of what happened in this case and it is also still subject to being transferred to different bases the court also found that the outside counseling for the children the father was not attending to them so she felt that it was going to be in the children's best interest to remain with her during the deployment the parties the testimony of ms one bill and mr campbell was that they were trying to return from his deployment the children should have been returning custody should have been our time father i would like to point out it isn't a record but in november i'm mr campbell filed a motion for return custody and then in january january second of twenty thirteen there was an agreed temporary order that was entered and signed by both of the both of the parties in this case which which the court entered is his number one petitioner shall have that the court to find it is against the manifest weight of the evidence but the trial court entered the temporary order given that he did after the fact agreed to it and i would argue has waived his arguments but it was improper as far as the  goes with regard to no with regard to what everything that's in the record i don't think that the court can finance against them and that will manifest weight of the evidence that was presented to the court that the modification was in fact or that there r the principal and she felt recommended to the court but not joint custody should continue but the primary residence of custodianship changed because the children were right being at this point with way they have information with regard to their children i believe that would in fact cause the i would raise the obligation for him to provide the information to my sons all so that she could one be involved  completely ignored her children for thirty months that is refuted in the trial testimony is refuted in the record she testified that she went and visited her children as often as she might mr campbell admitted and testif that she came on several occasions when they were in las vegas and also on several occasions at least three to four occasions once they had moved as far as mr going to hers statement about no gifts  or cards or things of that nature to the children i don't believe that's actually in the record i don't believe that there was any testimony about those issues and so i don't believe that it is proper for the court to consider given all of the evidence that was presented to the court during a two day trial in this case and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem after sitting through a two day trial in this case did not change she testified on the on the record at the second day of the trial but filed by both both parties both of which indicated that both parties believed that they should equally divide them they attacked except there was no testimony really taking about it at the trial i think the focus was on the statement that was filed by mr campbell stated that it was his position that the child thinks that the court should split the tax exemption tween them a his deployment but then that was never taken up again after he got back from the plunderer twenty fifth hears that on january second he entered an order two thousand and thirteen entered an order with respect to access to records under the divorce the divorce decree specifically stated the parties were titled access to records i don't necessarily believe that that makes the father puts upon him an obligation her anything and everything where is the mother's obligation to contact the school if she has questions or cells or to get records directly from the school he was already doing more than i think he was required to do by providing her the paperwork that night and that certainly w tipped her off about which school the children were in that she couldn't contact them and i'm talking about the nationally the one in vegas and then later they want to found so i don't think it necessarily makes the father a slave to providing all that information to the mother if she is truly interested in these children she would take the step the initiative to go find the same for mission out on her own a couple of the things that were mentioned first of all with respect to one of the things that the mother did immediately when she got here in illinois and may of two thousand and twelve she changed the pediatricians here's a situation where the father had had the children being seen by a pediatrician during the entire time he was here in illinois from two thousand and eleven up until may of two thousand and twelve she comes into town she's here three weeks she's first becoming reacquainted with the children and she immediately changes their pediatrician and i think that's the kind of judgment or lack of judgment that i'm talking about that affects her decision making with regard to th and along those same lines one of the things that opposing counsel cited in her argue in her brief was that and she just talked about a moment ago was the fact that the father was preventing the mother from seeing her request to visit with the children that only occur and the site that's in the record only occurred during that short time period after she got here in illinois in april of two thousand and twelve up until the time that he was deployed in may of two thousand and twelve while he's about to be deployed for six months she's now here in illinois she's going to be seeing the children on a regular basis of course he wants to see the children as much as he can before he leaves for a six month deployment that's why he wasn't acquiescing to her wishes to see the children constantly during that three week time period prior to him leaving is because he had an interest in seeing the children too especially since knowing he was only going to be able to see them by skype or telephone caller of the case may be for the next six months so i don't necessarily think it's instrumental to begrudge the father or effective to begrudge the father for not letting the mother see the children during that specific time period and that's the only time period that's that cited in the record lastly with respect to the move ellen without leave without leave of course the mother never said one word about that at any point in time she never objected she knew they were both in the military she knew he could be p c s to the time she knew he was in las vegas for a set period of time because of of a school she knew that the end of that time period he would be p c s somewhere else really transferred to another duty station somewhere else and so she was fully aware that that's why she didn't object she knew alternately she could leave hillary for space in utah herself and that's ultimately what she did she got a transfer to the base the same base is he back here at scott air force base i don't know that necessarily she should be begrudging him because it pretty much facilitated she was leaving anyway because that pillar for space and utah is where the sexual assault occurred and she wanted to get out of there anyway so i don't necessarily think that she should be begrudging him for transferring to another duty station without getting leav especially in a situation like this and i'm talking about lee report from nevada are the worst was especially in a situation like this where where he comes to illinois and he's at scott air force base and she hadn't been having any interaction with the children for a two and a half year period so i don't necessarily think it's appropriate for her to begrudge him for not getting leave of court with respect to this and lastly one of the other points that opposing counsel just brought up is his idea his thought was to place the children with his parents during the period of deployment but still allowed the mother all her visitation and in fact allowed the mother to have the children for the two