thank you and then mr scott for the apple e and mr stein we are aware that you filed a motion to strike in that motion was taken with the case thank you  counsel this is not helpful but what does it say about a parent who claims to love their child might be the nice that child relationship with the other parent my argument is fairly set forth in the brief i will speak to the motion to strike the brief when i received a letter affirm just judge as yours ruling and dismissal of the motion to modify parent first of all if you look at the motion and the brief that was filed definition from webster's which says it is inferior in importance size and degree i think most courts would be able to interpret a minor modification which time when they find it's in the best interest if it's a minor issue switching to equal co parenting has never been found to be minor issues when we dealt with custody and visitation and i  of the new statute yet but it does give us some guidance of what we're looking at and i know this court has given opinions a number of times sometimes not ones that i wanted you to give but it's obviously something that this court takes seriously i think a trial court takes seriously and what mr spread is attempting to do is to get around his obligation if he wants to change parenting time to show there is a substantial change in circumstance this was trying to get around and that's what this new motion is his first two motions which i mention in my brief his first two motions alleged laundry list of reasons of substantial changes since the time the judge and then time to mr gigantic eve with through he then with through all those motions and then he comes back and says oh just by means of the statute changing i want another night then he uses a percentage and says oh that's only six percent and then he says and if you do that it's going to be in the best interest of the child and he quotes another section of the statute because of this none of those are facts and each of those is an end run around change for we think of as inappropriate you know of course no one is a minor thing if you come in and you go you know thanksgiving  supposed to started fox no no i'm buying a petition has got a star three because my family comes down from you know in book two we have to eat it three or whatever it is courts that are trial course and in all of you've been on the equal share parenting plan is a major issue to the core it affects the ability of the child it affects schedules have been placed for six and a half years and when a trial judge gets those type of petitions if there are legitimate changes in circumstances a trial court then analyze that and the reason for the statute and saying that there is a need to change her need to show a substantial change in circumstances is because it's an important function of the trial court and in fact if you look at it compare the statute now versus before we have i believe fifteen factors to look at when you say is there changes or not just i want to know that night so in essence i i laid out all of this in our brief i think the judge asher was correct i believe that there are no allegations of facts there are only he pled basically legal conclusions those legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a cause of action in the state of  free i filed a motion and i did go back and re read the standing order of the court that allows a memorandum without complying with three forty one h it's the two allegations that i allege that  standing order of the court allows a memorandum instead of a brief and it says you must include all of these if you're going to do a memorandum but it doesn't say you must include three forty one   interpretation of your local order i didn't read it that way but i don't think there's an exclusion to comply with three forty two which is an appendix which is a requirement to allow this court to have in front of it the orders in the issues that way when you do your analysis pascha the brief it doesn't say you know i comply with the rest of the order or the rest of the rules just says that if you want to do a memorandum you have to include the specific sections of three four you want i don't think it excludes three forty one h the core purpose is that way then i'll stand corrected again we would ask for the order affirming the trial state in the statute the second thing that mr scott argues to this court is that it's the court's obligation to define what a minor modification is he says that it's the court's function this court is not the legislature the statute clearly includes a term that is not defined it is subject to interpretation as eyes articulated in my brief therefore i think it's incumbent upon this court to look at the statutory purpose the most relevant one is to maximise parental involvement and i just might say an adult i used to think that parents who were not involved in their kids life were bad parents but now i'm rethinking this because the system is failing that child parent relationship again what does it say about a parent who claims to love their child but yet the ni that child the same loving relationship with the other pounds and i got to come to the government and bag and plead for this minor six percent increase in time as i articulated in the brief now i will say again i've never agreed with the decisions of the court that have said you know we need stability in these kids life because i'm going to guess that of you have been exposed to situations either in your personal life or the lives of people you know where parents are running every which way to get their kid somewhere and are you saying to them that they need to get  but it is the rule of the law that we want to have stability and a child's life my ex wife and i live six blocks apart what i have proposed is a very stable parenting schedule that maximizes her time every other tuesday and every other wednesday thursday does not allow me and my daughter to do anything on any single day of the week we can't do anything on sunday monday tuesday wednesday thursday friday or saturday if my daughter and i wanted to take a cooking class which we have done on a saturday afternoon and we can land but if we wanted to do a class together that was every monday night no can't do it every tuesday night no can't do that either no single night of the week all i am asking for is for this court to give me a hearing in the circuit court to show how this parenting plan maximizes the prana longball ment of both parents i'm not standing before you or any court to say that i want to take away my daughter's relationship with her mother i'm saying it's divorce that parents are not together that's the reality and what is the best you can do for the child give them maximum time with both parents