carolina and also how the trial court in you were in the plain language of the agreed orders that were entered in this case with respect to the issues of child support and issue to increase in cost for these reasons we're asking the court to reverse the trial court's decisions on these matters and expressed in the courts will ruling with the court where we discussed that david had not demonstrated that he'd been consistently asking for more time on the contrary david's motion to modify specifically requested that he wanted more time the obviously proceed on that a didn't talk about under the rotation statute factor whether or not david had substantially and exercised his time in other words had he demonstrated he exercises time well found that he's done that rather the current focus on this question as to whether or not he had proven through either a stance of e mails rather or other method that he consistently wanted more time with his children in other words the court said it's not sufficient for you to just leave it in the oceans to come here and ask for it it's not that's not sufficient the court wanted to see other significant evidence the problem that is that's not one of the factors in any of these statutes whether or not it is consistently asking the time and i would suggest to the court that if it's that simple i think a lot of the patient cases would be ideas here as i could revise all my plans to just simply ask and consistently on for the court today in times that at some repeating things that you see throughout all of these factors i want you to killer is again david is again in the courts analysis of the location felt it or not consistently asking for time with these children oldest child the sick but she wouldn't come to the house she was uncomfortable with that he'd asked for additional time you know related around how these other other examples are included in the e mail so there was evidence that david was asking for more time also children she was unable to do that she needed to be able to have a better support system all of these things that were things that she asked for david's motion to modify responded to that by saying look i can help you with that given the time i'm there to help you with the kids i want more time i want to be here for my kids i can you can go chocolat you can stay we can make we can make this work centrally and so i do believe that the evidence at all demonstrated the david was not consistently asking for more time i think it also you know in its an that incident that that the court really focused on in making some broad generalizing statements about david's you know your action involvement with the children that i do want to discuss today because i think those are important but he had been going to be able to be a stay at home mom and care for the way that the kids the way she has traditionally unless she's able to go to north carolina and i think i want to let that sink in for a moment which and you know it's a little bit concerning to me and then going to  court's decision on this and think the evidence in this case definitely demonstrated that you know now it certainly did have resources here she pursued price in the sixty one thousand dollars in the divorce and we just know forty thousand dollars from david and i for the equity in the marital home agreement because a summer vacation for the kids she didn't she didn't have any discussions with david about wanting to continue the employment in any way but just just stopped working on him also i mean she admitted that the recent appointment really had no effect didn't make sense to try the case at that point i think is the court's position and i think i was if she's where that you know that that would be denied and we would just be facing to be location year in how to seeing how that relationship evolved i think the court raises a good point about the relationship between david  illinois law and while the factors have been replaced under the real question statute there are several factors under eckard that were sort of got into that and one of the issues here i think from eckert in particular was in that jobs but had not looked outside of her beauty geographical area or potential positions so not going into the entire st louis area she did she's a spanish speaking individual so she wanted to leverage those skills specifically she testified that she reached out to an organization about child support we did however we did indicate in our grief that the issue of the child support of rereads compilation with no it's not properly before you on appeal i know that a motion the filed by look at the eleven factors under six or nine point two it's overwhelmingly in support of it miss and good it makes an argument that mr williams the petition for modification was less than two years after the prior order on parenting time technically besides a substantial change of circumstances there should have been any indication that they were in danger made to the children we didn't address that the statute was getting probably discreet a lot of people from filing the relocation asking for a brief on a particular issue does not mean that there's a substantial change in circumstances be that as it may and over the way when seems to be surgery and having to hire a private babysitter because mr williams wouldn't take a day off work that i can handle the growth in the evening now the baby mr williams during it on that i think it was under the microscope of litigation in august of two thousand and sixteen during that year that there was a decision to hold off on the relocation trial because the relationship needed to be repaired during that time period and it was late august to sixteen i think with argus twent preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial change in circumstances wanting a change of hearing two times get it right move he was asking essentially for a fifty fifty schedule i think he wanted an extra day during the week to make his week and a three day weekend credibility regarding the issue of the breakdown in whose relationship with the oldest daughter i believe the rose in the fall of fifteen there was the incident where mr williams spanked the eldest daughter and you're probably essentially for lack of a better kind of pact a promise in the counseling that he would no longer spank her in this physical discipline and he used to get the kid and there was a great down the relationship to the point that the older daughter just oldest daughter and the father i mean frankly i think that she did was very selfish she waited to get another year to be able to move to north carolina to have the court make the decision as to whether or not she could move the girl to north carolina she for a while to complete and i believe it was a ph d program that would have allowed more gratitude in her schedule to be a natural parent it was a place where mom unlike this case you had a father in that case that really was supposed to have surgery by taking care of the children that was not the evidence that was presented in the fact that mr mandela was given the opportunity to provide e mail evidence after the fact to show to definitively demonstrate that i sent david another e mail i said i can't get obligations so he needed to work and as he testified that day he couldn't assist because he himself had his presentation at work so it just happened to be an unfortunate circumstance the second circumstance and the charge that was this idea that david had refused to help  hot you know in the hospital that that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about dirty exercise this time and there were certainly plenty of evidence and testimony which the court didn't even discuss where talked about davis relationship with his children that he tucked into the piano that he's talking to play that he reads to them every single night that they do players every single night that they need together but they discuss politics they talk penguin's they have all kinds of different things that they are involved to get it with his relationship with his two girls is very close but that was not discuss