me leads to court and he's really passed water on the attorney for the appellate in the state postal rate crystal's in the audience today with me this case primarily is here before you in relation to removal issues  majority of my comments this morning be addressed to removal in the application of the record factors and that's where i think the focus is and it's the purpose of this appeal very simply and in this case the trial court didn't  issued a ruling of the against manifestly evidence the court didn't engage in a careful and balanced decision of the trial court essentially found against my client on every single factor under the eckerd findings and in doing so  you agree that the analysis was somewhat shaped by the fact that your client have a credibility problem with the court absolutely that's a very central issue that the trial court and in my opinion took that credibility  determination and over used it as substantive evidence in the case to sensually throw the baby out the bathwater sensually not apply the facts and look at the actual evidence that was before the court i think that's why this cases is here before the before this court that the decision was in some respects an emotional response as opposed to an actual analysis of what the facts are this is a case of a woman who had almost no nexus the state of illinois she lived in the state of illinois  for a little over two years at the time of the divorce and she did choose to come to the state of illinois marry an individual have her child in the state of illinois correct that is absolutely correct i can't dispute that and have no desire to dispute that fact  she made a decision that she thought this marriage was going to work out but like a lot of people found out very quickly when she had children that the fairy tale didn't meet the facts that this wasn't the gentleman that she met and had a child with  a very short relationship that resulted in a child they've been dating just a few months he was getting out of the service and his family was here in illinois and so for her to try to have a family with him that almost necessitated her to come to illinois if she wanted to live the fairy tale so to speak when she got here the fairy tale blew up it was a relationship that was very one sided i don't think that the trial court really looked at the fact that this is a classic dependent relationship one spouse works one did one state home and relied almost entirely on her husband for money and finances she's incredibly dependent and as a result of that dependence maybe some things that another case might not raise as major issues for her scared of this guy she was terrified he was going to cut off her access to her newborn child is just an infant of the time this and that to me sort of went out the door once we went through a hearing and it became an issue of the bomb squad testifying and whether the screen aid was inert and things of that nature and i think the court has got lost in some of those more grandiose issues and didn't look at the actual realities of of a normal case of recurring facts of a dependent relationship dissolution of marriage act six o nine is going to be gone we're going to go to six o nine point two in which someone from chicago for instance who moves to still annoyed to go for school if they have a child under that new statute you're going to have these cases these removal cases even somebody who has a very limited contact to so the university of illinois has a kid they can be there six eight nine months ten months with that child and all of a sudden they're going to be in the trial court litigating these issues and these are  because of the emotion because you have it a lot of times a dad saying you know i don't want my child to go far away from me and that's a very sympathetic position and i don't want to minimize that at all but it's looking out so many ask you this i asked you about the credibility issue you're asking us we didn't see the witnesses we didn't hear what they had to say we've got a cold record and you're asking and says the appellate court to say this judge not a wrong who sat there and observe these witnesses and all the other witnesses that our function judge and i push it that question because i think that's the difficult standard that i have before you and what i try to do is stay away from credibility determinations i haven't really argued in this brief that this witness is more credible than the other what i've said is here are four or five facts that are completely undisputed the the husband in this case his statements his own testimony and evidence irrespective of any credibility issue his text messages are the only way i know how to not feel depressed is to drink that's in front of the judge and he threw it out north the pictures in the house are m p liquor bottles guns weapons they're not going to dispute that that he smashed furniture and is having angry outburst that's his  get it i mean if i'm recalling correctly you know the liquor bottles of course we don't have any pictures of who consume the liquor in the bottles there is a situation where i believe the father was indicating he dropped this table versus smashed the table there was evidence regarding that both of them consumed alcohol and there was evidence regarding your client allegedly putting cost information in a request for an order of protection i me requests were an order protection and that seemed to go kind of bit to the court's finding that your client would not facilitate the relationship between the father and the child i agree each of those are the findings of the trial court but what i would i'm asking the supposed court to do is actually look at the substance of those those events the issue of the smashed table for instance we have a contemporaneous text message from adam ray that day saying i'm sorry that i get so angry i blow up like i do now that's his own words his own admissions and the truck court says well we're not going to believe his own admissions because she gave some other statements that are or are contradicted i don't think that's what i what i feel that's the issue that i have been on this peel crystal raid may have made some statements that she couldn't substantiate but at the end of the day she presented a lot of facts that would suggest this wasn't just someone who was you know making this up out of whole cloth a lot of the domestic violence cases are credibility determinations he said she said and i appreciate that the court saying look why are we going to substitute but i'm not asking the court to do that i'm looking at this judge basically said i find it incredible and thrilling else out he didn't look at it and i don't think that's the way it should have been done i think that what that does is essentially show the passion and prejudice of the trial court and if if this court doesn't look at it just as i throw our hands up it's a credibility determination you know a trial court could simply say it's a credibility determination every single case we never look at well let me ask you this because the lead to whether or not your client present evidence to carry her burden to show th home the truck or seem to prove present that she was supposed to say well economically the environment in florida is so much better than here what does she know about the economics of illinois she didn't apply for a job she was sitting enough and home she's supposed to just present a bunch of speculation as to what illinois is like we tried this case in october she was in school she didn't have the ability to even have a job in her own career so that's that's the issue as as it relates to to to that that nexus what evidence was she supposed to permit her of it and indeed what evidence would anyone in her situation half when she has just a very limited amount of time in the  form state so to speak you know she simply didn't didn't have a lot but she did have a look here's what i'm asking the court to do i would like to go to florida where i'm from where i have contacts for my family is where my family can watch my child it's a two year marriage you'll note that in the divorce case she didn't receive any maintenance the only income that she has is child support and the truck court's ruling is that she is going to be out of the house so we're basically saying ok here in illinois you don't have a merrill residence you have no maintenance and you've got to go find a job and she doesn't have any real relationship illinois or any experience with with job in illinois that  home where i can you know resume potentially the career that i've already had she works down there indeed on the motion to reconsider to reopen the evidence that i filed with the court resent it out it's of of actual dollar to me we're making fifteen dollars an hour with with babysitting i mean it's a great opportunity that's the second issue on appeal and i get that later but i think off focus on removal but you know very very simply we talk about the likelihood of improving the quality quality of life in the trial court found no evidence of quality life would be improved by florida that's what the truck court found that to me is a very incredible ascertainment a fact because under the facts of this case you have somebody who all of her ties in life with the exception of a short period she's right here in illinois and her her son's family members is in florida this child had been to florida to visit these family members this child has relationships with mom's parents young child who's brand new to the state she presented what the facts were in ask the court to speculate about the job market in florida typically she tried to say look this is what i know i know people in florida i have a family in florida i know i can be issue i'd like to address in the second factor under removal i like to focus on the court's finding of bad faith and i know we touched on this a little bit so i won't belabor the point but you know again there's not any dispute that this is a have video and things that nature but there's no dispute on that that incident that he had been drinking his mother was going to pick him up because he had too much to drink in the truck or simply ignores that element that melman of of alcohol abuse that that element of this is a person who's drinking and this is a mom in an unequal relationship he doesn't want to be around that that father with that child well while he's drinking that's that's a problem that's abuse or as in you the court shouldn't turn a blind eye to what happens in a lot of homes what happens on a daily basis with people who are abused and in these kind of relationships where you have subs abuse alcohol abuse on one side you say look this is the situation here she presents a lot of evidence about that situation and this is a gentleman with access to guns weapons knives he's a survivalist he's in owns a bunker he's into things and he's a very large man she's scared of him and so she went and she got an emergency order protection the trial court for whatever reason didn't have a have a hearing i think that some blame or some allocation of fault has to go to the respondent here if he wanted a hearing to get visitation with his son that the act provides very specific remedies that they could hit he could have pursued to get this issue and from the court i don't know why he waited one hundred some odd days to get it to trial but to some extent the trial court's finding of somehow that that crystal ray's at fault because this order of protection drug on her or that she went and got it i think is is is a it's a very bad precedent it's a very bad situation in terms of are we going to discourage people who are in these kind of dependent relationships to not go get an urn emer certainly that was how everybody understood that that it was done it was when i think it my recollection from the status conference was let's go forward to have a hearing on all issues and that was that was fine and and i think that the point i would make though is that the amended statement of facts on the order protection those were filed also under five a one in a petition for temporary relief so crystal file d by this person which i think is an acceptable reasonable request and she wanted him to get some at all assessment that was really all she was asking for and you know third i want to go to florida that power pushes a heck of a lot in terms of separation of the parties any kind of fear anxiety she might have for herself or her safety so they were tried together to answer to answer your question the court's decision was a ruling with both case captions on it well and that that wasn't my question though  was timely i if you want to address that issue i can go ahead but they were consolidated that the ruling in the memorandum opinion that comes out of the hearing is in both cases it's clearly caption that way  i don't know why the truck or didn't do that in terms of the specific issue of jurisdictions is the courts raise it it has a concern and i see my time that you have until the red light very very simply whether that order protection is file or not that the court retain jurisdiction of the same issues and parties in the in the same issues of separation of the parties of relief under the request of of two fourteen the relief of having a therapist that and i've i've grief that i record to that in terms of the removal of the court through reverse the trial court and grant removal here in this case i think that the record is fairly clear that the results that was reached by the trial court was somewhat arbitrary and simply finding against crystal on all issues i think is motivated by the passion and prejudice of the judge against her because he found she lied in terms of  second issue of the abuse of discretion of crystal's motion to reconsider and reopen the evidence i just asked the court to consider the following that that the facts of the business in a trial were that crystal didn't work the new evidence that she presented was i've got a job in florida i can't find a thing in and things going to drag on for i mean you can just heard the facts of the case there's two new facts that go directly to all of the issues let's let's have a hearing on that let's go forward and take care of this child and not have the child stuck in illinois with no job no place to please the court counsel my name is daniel has singer and i represent the apple he read out of grade just like to start off by saying that the trial court got it right in this case in terms of the issue of removal the trial court very carefully considered each factor under eckert made its memorandum opinion made fact findings yes there were credibility issues and yes they should be a determining factor judge supplying facts to all the court that she would have better job opportunities and that there was a veto over crime rate at nationally flow through to trial and the court did however in regards to factor one made a specific finding that he found her to not be credi that he found that she was motivated to move to the state of florida to frustrate adam raise visitation with the child and these two cases were tried at the same time they were not consolidated however the judge did hear the evidence in the order protection case was that adam raided told crystal wright that he wanted force the next day she files and seeks and obtains an emergency order of protection that emergency order protection kept adam ray from seeing his son for one hundred  on testimony on cross examination she admitted that she put facts in there that she knew to be untrue and so yes the trial court was very right in taking into consideration the credibility of her as a witness but also as the that the actual evidence that was being presented she didn't meet her under any of the factors and that's why the trial court decided against her on each of the acar factors and when you look at the cases  on removal that would support removal in a case like this those those factors are closely balance there are many cases out there where the trial court says i did not believe this witness i found the most to be suspect had not sought employment illinois there were no comparisons from what was going on in her life through what would happen in florida if she were allowed to move that would give the trial court pause the truck court did acknowledge that there would be regards to the trial court denying the motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider was denied because it was not newly discovered evidence was available at the time  this new evidence you don't get to go to trial and and lose on that issue when they go out and gather evidence to support your issue and then come back and say that now i can meet my burden and so i think the judge was was operating in denying the motion to reconsider the in regards to the jurisdictional issue of your protection being dismissed the judge issued two distinct so there was an order dismissing the plenary order protection and there was a judgment in the dissolution case two separate cases granted i will concede that there is on the final order of the order of protection a notation that says c memorandum of opinion for findings of fact  properly dismissed or to actually the evidence was clear in the record where in the testimony of witnesses that crystal fabricated evidence in support of her protection it turned to  and between the parties the result in the order of protection is a decision that is the result of the passion or prejudice of work or simply didn't like what crystal did when she filed the petition and was unable to support certain aspects of that mission if you look at the actual pleading the amended description of incidents the only thing that she isn't peached on is that things in paragraph ten she went through in the first of her paragraphs and sound very specific on this occasion this happened backed it up with text messages so she identified four or five different specific incidents which she asked for the order section then in paragraph ten she said and i'm afraid of this guy he's part of a militia he's made threats to kill himself she didn't support tho se things very well she put in attached to that petition in that section a text message which turns out to be it was a relation to some national football game and that she the threats the statement that mr ra made which nobody disputes is put myself in front in front of a train well apparently and from that it was in relation to national teams of human in which she was confronted with that she she said yeah that's you know what i put that in i i'm not sure why it went in but it was in one paragraph of this in any domestic violence type situation you're going to have a credibility determination it's very likely impossible that you're going to have someone who's impeached to some degree or another with statements they made that in the heat of their fear their anxiety ever was going on they make make statements that are refuted and that's why we have a trust we have docked to cross examine the witness but the truck or shouldn't be allowed to simply then this toss out and tiley disregard of all of the