just know that it is significant first of all that the court made findings regarding the minor child's step siblings this is significant because the minor child has siblings at the time of trial trial the child had one half sister with whom she had a very close relationship and a second house or who is to be born in september two thousand and eleven the child is biologically grandmother a sonogram photograph of her unborn sister and said this is our new baby sister the evidence shows that the minor child is closely bonded with her sister caroline the child is very hundred points caroline to recognize the importance of playing bond that exists between the minor child and her sister caroline renders its findings and reasonable arbitrary and not based on the other further the trial court failed to recognize  battery conviction and she passed and a few weeks after the battery incident respondents are war was transported to a hospital by ambulance after ingesting alcohol and drugs responded   her lying unconscious on her apartment floor petitioner testified that respondent had told her that it's her more he'd been threatening to commit suicide at the time that he broke down her door  because there is no marriage with a caregiver whose judgment and emotional stability are questionable it should also be noted that the evidence showed that some minor child was sullen and mouthy to petition after visits with responded converse lee responded offered no evidence that the child misbehaves after being with dish the discrepancies in testimony or even really example when the respondent testified about allegedly finding the petitioner in a state unconscious after consuming alcohol and drugs  by her mother and ideas for years the issues that i would like to address this morning are primarily three fold obviously michael believes that the court's decisions and the rulings that were made were created in the best interest of his daughter emma additionally the issues that i would like to focus on this morning really surround the facts and the differing view of the facts two factors and the appropriateness of the appropriateness of his analysis in that regard and i would like to talk about the issues related to the petition for removal specifically the application  lie specifically in regards to what the facts are each of us could go through those days of trial and those witnesses and hand various things that would identify weaknesses or strength in our respective parties i think that the purpose of reciting facts to this board is to give you kind of an average or a blend of the good and bad the the perspective that the court probably saw when he was analyzing this evidence i think the petitioner the appellant in this particular case has failed to do then and instead has cherry picked certain facts that show weaknesses in regard to the father michael  normal area or didn't consider the step siblings because he referred to them as steps as step siblings instead of half sibling is really missed construing the ruling if you look at the ruling judge reiner and in fact when he used the term step siblings put quotes around the word step siblings there were two children other than emma that were discussed at trial one of which was caroline which was in fact her half sister who was approximately one at the time of trial olivia was also pregnant with her third child but that child had not been born at the time of trial the other young man who was at heart of the s family was my client's fiance meg and her little boy who was the same age as emma that little boy was discussed at trial in regard to testimony was given in regard to him this relationship with him how they played together how they enjoyed one another's company the things they did together in the family unit when i'm referring to the family unit i'm talking about who was living in michael's home with me and him and it was michael now again emma and meghan's little boy those are the children that the court assassin and i believe when you use the term step siblings and that's probably who he was referring to that was not of the mission or consideration of this little girl's relationship with her sister caroline the facts that we see in regard to my client's domestic violence conviction yeah he admitted that he pushed is for his girlfriend at the time now miss fiance i don't see inconsistency in regard to their testimony at trial they both acknowledge that they were drinking and intoxicated that they been out they both acknowledge that i'm there was an argument at the vehicle they both acknowledge that my client pushed her and when he pushed her she hit her head on the vehicle the difference between when you look at the don't try to direct you there quickly when required to what he determined to be what alcohol is not credible testimony of olivia the mother in this particular case he specifically paragraph jean he specifically says that her demeanor or her denial and demeanor in this regard was not credible so i find it somewhat ironic that a large part of the the appellant's case is that the judge felt to assess credibility of witnesses michael hall when in his findings he clearly did assess credibility this questions regarding credibility however were all laid up on credibility issues that you found with the petition of if you look to paragraph of his ruling he analyzes physical violence and specifically says that the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the respondent which is michael to the extent that he is allegedly then effusive to the petitioner now the petitioner being olivia the mother of the child which is disputed to a significant extent and to the extent that he was conceded t so too was clear it's a balancing of all those factors so i believe that he did consider that incident that occurred he did consider all of the the evidence that was heard in regards to the allegations that mother had made against him and he had made against mother which was that they both had had thrown things they both in their young age and having a child which neither of them were very well prepared fo made decisions in regard to reacting to stressful situations made some poor decisions both of them dead i don't think that's why i've come in family cases when we when we have children having children what's concerning to me is in the facts of this particular case those facts that seem to be going to have a stand on them in in the brief where they're isolated in regard to their selection they don't show the overall picture which was presented and the overall picture that was presented was that michael was consistent when he was supposed to have his daughter had her he was timely and returns unlike mom who sometimes the evidence showed it was thirty to ninety minutes like in regard to returns he didn't post postings on facebook saying anyone in champagne want to babysit tonight i'll make sure that she doesn't get out of her crib for two hours in those are the things that we saw judgment issues that were so clear from the record having the child's first birthday party and the birthday cake said happy effen first birthday i mean these are just judgment issues that it trial when you heard the witnesses it was so apparent that the judgment on far was impaired and it was apparent not only with her but also in regard to individuals that she exposed the child to the fact that appellant would like to assert his this is a stable marriage and that this is going to be this perfect little picture when they go to south carolina and live on this safe and secured and know and they view that that's not the picture that was presented at trial by the fa facts were that this young woman olivia after returning from her honeymoon had conversations with my client and his mother that she was unhappy she didn't want to be married she didn't want to take  south carolina but she was afraid not to because she thought it would look poorly on her the same kind of judgment that we saw throughout where the focus was always on a libya and what a libya would look like and what would be best  record that's clear because there was a lot of testimony in regards to the paternal grandparents having a phenomenal relationship with this little girl allowing the parties to live with them for  period of time helping them get into their own apartment being a day care provider from eight weeks of a i'll tell the champagne move occurred when mom behaving poorly and then tr who should have custody of this child he considers it is if this child is staying in illinois what are the benefits of pros and cons of the child's adjustment and community if she stays in illinois why and even under that assessment an analysis which if that factor favors day the incidences that were in the record more than forty incidences where people observed exchanges of this child with her mother mother refusing to help and so she just thought she would just stay in the vehicle but the difficulty was that it was and it was simply an oddity in regard to a normal exchange where generally a parent would come receive the child  completely absent and as a result of that there was also a lot of testimony your honour's showing that this child responded very poorly to mother after those transitions and those same witnesses testified they never observed that in regard to michael receiving his daughter from his mother his approach was different obviously got out of the vehicle only but those kinds of incidences i think made the sick so to analysis that the court provided very appropriate in regard to the custody decision and this is not a situation where either of these people were primary caregivers i mean at a minimum my client have a child half the time there was evidence by eyewitnesses to say have the child more than him because he took his time and then he took extra time if of the child the reason why the court made a determination on sole custody i believe was although the opinion doesn't say that there was a lot of evidence to show not good communication between the parties there is also evidence to show there if if if mother was displeased with something that father did or said she would remove the child from him as a means of punishment there were there were many issues that continuing to do a fifty fifty split mother was not agreeable to doing that her petition for her move asked for removal as to his progress yes it was very clear that all parties were seeking to sell custody but at the at the were mediation was conducted and fail there were pretrial documents in all our file that made it clear that the request was sole custody and there was no premature joint and so it was apparent to all the players in the judge that joint custody or in the a truck alternative any equitable belief that the court came to appropriate and i believe that that that is  that he was a fit and proper person to have joint custody and joint control of the education of the minor child and that he was requesting joint legal and physical custody in the pair for relief it asked for joint custody or in the never never any objection by the respondent have pallant in this case and again the court was well aware that that was the decision that had to be made as it relates to the issues related to assessing the credibility of witnesses i would just assert to the court as i did in my brief the case was very clear that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the demeanor of witnesses there's no evidence to indicate in this case that the judge did removal was not in the best interest of this little girl she knew no one in south carolina other than her mother and stepfather there were extreme questions in regard to the stability of that relationship there had also been evidence even asserting that in addition to emotional and judgment  help issues she had employed some of the same tactics with her husband because caroline was born out of wedlock then telling him he had no rights to the child and there even been conflicts between the two of them prior to marriage which really mirrored the same kind of response she had provided to michael which we believe strongly supported the determination by the court that mother simply didn't have the ability to facilitate the relationship between