own standards but are bound by that which the legislator legislature has set forth by statue and the reason why that resonates with me today is in the response brief and i think  will encourage this court to said a new standard to break away from the rest of the indians of illinois or and  can be summary of nature for example in our fees under five who want see one can be a summary presentation of evidence but this requires due notice in a full hearing in my guess a motion to change custody or anything else is subject to the requirements of the civil practice so the proposal forward to dismiss of the two six fifteen might like i don't  there was no physical abuse or aggression yond a mutually describe brushing of each other and in a doorway the parties work together in getting a few minor children to many activities you have  the petition has no belief it never physically struck her she feels like the petitioners condemning her when he whispers to him so or ask her why or why it was left on and she feels like the children are feeling more stress and are not able to focus in the recent his against the math test weight of the evidence many opposite inclusion is parent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable arbitrary or not based on the other so base that the evidence for church right or conclude no children before the final hearing in the divorce these things are drastic the burden should be high that jeopardy should be proven this shouldn't be a in and out thing this should not it should be the exception construed literally to fulfill the purposes but there are a lot of purposes in the divorce act that would if if this is to be applied liberally to promote those purposes it would encourage my client not being removed from the home and namely safeguarding the family relationships mitigating the potential harm to the spouse and the children securing the maximum involvement of both parents and making provision for the preservation and conservation of assets during litigation rents now being paid by my clients reducing the marital status by striking out on a new road should be encouraged especially when already there are several courts of all districts that have consistently rule  it again we we are bound or it's ours as we are not free to set or own standard or beyond by that which legislature has set forth by statute he would be the legislature she would need to contact to right this wrong that she feels that  now we do have some exceptions the legislature made where you don't need to clean the facts for example in four three of the four statue dealing with grounds does the legislature say all you need to do is list the name of the grounds you don't need to list those supporting facts it goes on to say of the other party you want so bill particulars it can ask for it but all you need to do is fax they did not do is i'm kind of happy to get up here and be able to verify what my actual position on this case is an awful position on this case it's not to change statute actual position on the case it's not to set a new standard but i would like this or to acknowledge and i want to bring to the court's attention how important this case i believe this case is going to be so what i first like to do is just address this case that is before the court because to me it seems a fairly simple case so in my facts of the case my client this at length talked about the tension in the stress she talked about walking on egg shells she talked about derogatory comments that had been made to her on a daily basis there had been physical aggression in this case counsel so there was one time where there is a bump in a hallway you know you bump you're in a hallway you walk there and about for him would not let her out and he had a habit of putting his hand across a doorway so she could not come in and out of doorways it getting no i'm saying i agree you never hit or that would have made mike i agree it would have made my case easy but this was this kind of bizarre increasing behavior and the court and knowledge that that and there's kind of some insidious we're honest that's going on here and i wish i wish it came across better on the transcript where she would talk about the fact that her husband would t well and those are the sort of things that you can't necessarily when that is being described those are the sorts of weird behaviors that she was talking about now i am not asking for you to do anything in this case but in or see the statute and the statute says only in cases where this one mental wellbeing of either spouse or their children is jeopardized by the occupancy by both parties and i think we met that burden i really i i think the judge sat he observed he listened to the testimony about the daily verbal aggression he listened to the testimony about cursing and use of foul language he listened to the testimony about the physical aggression  client testified she was physically afraid of david she stated that she said the threat of physical aggression is constant she also testified as to how this affected her girls that the girls had witnessed the aggression that they had witnessed the verbal statements to her on a daily basis and that it had a negative effect on her my my brief state some of the names i have become familiar with the names that she was called and the intimidation on cross examination then  comes in and says well what about these pictures and i reference it in my brief but what you were unable to observe was really the idea that look here's a picture of the child trying to do her homework and moms writing in her journal nearby that to me and judge mind said the same thing shows more about the person taking the photograph than the person is photographed and so he even acknowledged some of this and in his ruling he talked about the fact  specifically about these parties demeanors and i do believe that exclusive possession should not be granted willing telly i don't believe that this should be some sort of lower burden as counsel and kate but i do believe that in this particular case we established that the physical and mental well being of my client and the minor children was jeopardized by the continued occupancy as the tensions and stress for pricing and she talks about that these physical aggression the verbal aggression what the kids were going through i believe we've proven our case i believe the church reinard made a correct decision and that certainly he should not be reversed so that's this case i honestly think it's a fairly simple case if this were just a run of the mill case the facts are laid out on my refund pages five and seven for my client testify assess the what she went through i did then want to talk about the cases that's the result before it's own and this is how it goes in the attorneys and a lot of family law practitioners use and the reason that's important is because again i want to point out to this court that this is how it goes then you go on to lima the talks about this knife and sexual intercourse with you actually read the li case it was three years before she didn't say it was not sexual she said she felt it was not very romantic for three years after that not very romantic sex they continued to reside together they continued to take meals together she continued to do his laundry oh and another thing that's important time of the people have a tendency to overlook she passed by i don't care if he keeps looking at us but nonetheless when we're trying these cases and you can see it in the brief children i goes on to say but you know if she's not taking her meds that seems like a bad thing in public or it said you had no you made a finding she was fine you have no expert testimony you only have a husband saying watch what i'm taking her med now we're reversing here because of your own findings so i'm not attacking these cases i'm simply explaining these cases i want this or to understand that for the for years we've dealt with those three cases him with an iron you get it into the session these other two cases including nine consensual sex and mental problems and health hospitalization for those mental problems you don't get it and so from that people have gotten this idea that there is  very high standard i think the standard is what set forth in the statute itself which it is continued occupancy by both parties causes mental or physical jeopardy to one of the parties or the children that's it but because we only son again turns on its own facts in that case and i don't think i'm saying has anything to do with this case but since it's been brought up levinson the parties were nesting by agreement and nesting situation is where the children stay in the home father come for one week mother moves out mother comes from one week father moves out so the children stay in that now asked and the birds fly in and out the pay it's so that was a lessening situation back room and the parties were not actually living in the same circumstances and if you really levin and has an expert that says don't change this at this time it will be harmful to the children if you make a change at this time because they are getting ready to go back to school so the levinson case is kind of different cause it's a nesting and there were ninety one in ninety four and i do think that since one thousand nine hundred two things have changed i think people take domestic courts i don't mean to say people courts take domestic violence seriously consider the case for coming down today we have criminal charges no doubts about it no we wouldn't be talking about it it's a possession we'd be talking about the criminal charges facing that the husband was facing her pistol whipping his wife hitting her with an iron and getting over this this but why here is the key for this court it is highly unlikely that you're going to be hearing very many who's a possession cases but the most part we get exclusive possession done if we don't get it done and we go to court and there is an adverse ruling generally everybody knows it's going to take about six months to wrap up the case of put your head down get to the end of the case and let's get the case resolved this case was taken up on appeal so you have an opportunity now to sit and say number one we do believe our trial judge who was in the position of observing these parties made the proper ruling we do believe that the trial judge was able to find the evidence presented that it is a call of the mental well being of either spouse or the child is jeopardized by the continuous act and seen by both parties so that that is the simple part of this case but as you write the case and as you ponder this i submit to you that this is going to be one of the few cases you now have to issue a ruling on that issue of exclusive possession because we rarely take the south is that necessary and i just want to interject here because is it your explanation for the relative scarcity or paucity of cases of purplish section seven zero one that the statute itself is fairly straight forward using language that that is how i have always argued the case the statutes when i have it at the trial level the statute itself is what the porches be paying attention to what all of these are facts written by the facts on their own cases but as you can see even from that brief  wow look how hard this is i'm not saying the statute i have never said that you need to take a new standard i have never said that this is too hard of the standard what i am saying is that and in supporting a trial judge at least gives us something to hang our hat people rely on that in that in her commentary she says it was easier to get an order of protection but nonetheless if if it's being so how did you hear it really puts this upside down it really puts a subset down to have to even think that in order to protection would be easier to obtain possession and quite frankly if i'm representing the competent attorney can explain to the court why these cases are different than the case before the or but nonetheless that's where we find ourselves in the scope of where the law is today in illinois and so because that's where we find ourselves i bring that to you as a practitioner to tell you this is what practically happens to us so that is you are mulling over this case and deciding this case you can keep that in mind but but if we are just dealing with this case itself i think it's fairly straightforward the evidence as to the difficulties my flight was going through and the stress she went to are laid out in my free time five and seven the court i've laid out what the court said in terms of being able to observe the demeanor of the parties so this case in and of itself seems to me to be fairly simple judge reiner did not abused his discretion there was a lot of evidence quite frankly which supported granting exclusive possession of the house any questions if not i strongly urge cases they they are distinguishable actually the statute itself is fairly straightforward and i believe this case is very straightforward in terms if you really just decided this case but there a position that it's it's the plain meaning of the word jeopardy the mental well being or the physical well being is in jeopardy ok why would i on this record what was a reasonable  if this took some stress and some awkwardness every divorce would result in one of the parties being evicted from home quite quickly i don't think that's what the i think that's why they used the word if it jeopardizes their physical being because i have seen very few divorces where people are slyly you think that people who wrote the statute didn't understand this concept that you've just explained to us i think they do and that's why they used the word jeopardize in knots for example the words like if they're if it affects their mental well or if it affects someone if they