understood right too that if you look at the facts of this case that is what is most beneficial i think to miss family and to argue we've got a case here the other cases say you can't change a person to the state of illinois for example and what you said is absolutely correct it doesn't mean half to allow this person move but once she establishes a legitimate reason for wanting to move then we need to look into all of these other factors i believe she did establish a legitimate reason to want to move she remarried in two thousand and twelve and she in fact didn't ask to move until two thousand and fourteen so she's been doing this travel from wisconsin illinois about five hour  drive not only centuries married but prior to that if she's got family wisconsin's some kind of skipping around her as these things come up but they've always traveled to the more directly to your question the fashion this a show that she's from wisconsin these parties actually married in wisconsin everything was in wisconsin and they moved to the pater eleanor area her old horse school district and lived there is a couple where her siblings are where his entire family was so what we have in this case is a factual scenario where we either have this failed land and live in decatur with her two children without the benefit of her husband with no family support system in two separate households on the other hand if we allow her to go to wisconsin she's under one roof living with her husband in just as good a school district as she has agree that she did did and does everything for these kids this isn't a situation where you've got mom and dad both parents she's doing everything what i say everything doctor's appointments dentist appointments extracurricular courts i'm somewhat taken aback by her her position that if this is the night i'm just going to move that's what the court said that is not she said the trial court made their statement fine now here's what it here's she actually said that she was my hope is somehow to get closer to my family yes this is in response to the question what if i denied my goal was to somehow get closer to my family yes i would definitely be selling a huge house in iraq is just too much upkeep in response to a question you're going making he doesn't want to say well here's why it doesn't enhance the quality of the children's lives he doesn't say that being able to live one household with your husband would necessarily make you or enhanced your quality of life which would necessarily enhanced the quality of life of your kids that her entire family's from the area that she'll be a happier person by living under one roof the the next thing that forceps and i want to draw your attention to is that well these are inconsistent statements but it goes back to the facts of this case and that is that moms that dated a person hears of course father was working longer hours in his business to supervise the fluid lifestyle of the family was not involved in many of the day to day routine matters involving the children and later on the course says that he was involved in routine matters but he wasn't and i think there's a war here because this is a mother who does everything for these kids and says we've given her the opportunity we've already determined that she's the proper custodian and we've got to give i think  great deference is the word give great deference to her determination to remarry into relocate that the bat that that is in the best interests of her kids we have to give that great deference i think  if we were just looking at it do kids want to move in are they a good environment already we'd never agree and i mean rarely in those situations we're good schools good environment good friends here we've got kids that young enough  this she didn't want to file when they got divorced her testimony was too much going on she didn't want to upset the kids and she wanted to listen to the oldest daughter finish high school did all that then file this july fourteenth and probably that would be his position but she was saying and said all along at some point i want to try to move wisconsin and that's why she wanted that word in there but i'm just showing that she had his best interests at heart she didn't try to move  right away she waited you know almost two years with the kids best interest in mind a couple of things that the the court said it said the travel will  big kids have always traveled to and from if you've got a husband lori in wisconsin the kids are going to be traveling to and from they've got family they've got a grandmother grandfather cousins in wisconsin the travel between eleanor in wisconsin will be no matter what this court does and actually it will be less if her petition is granted according to her best point going to fifteen trips a year to twelve groups here and that was her effect punishing her for putting the cart before the horse that's my reading of it and with and then with the comment that i'm somewhat taken aback by her position this night i'm just going to move that's not that's not really if you look at what she said all she was comments in any event i believe that that particular facts of this case be she's from wisconsin parents from their kids have cousins there her husband's was about once a month well and sometimes made the point that she wanted to move back to where she had the right but the children have lived their entire life here yes they have which is so hot i mean six years eleven years well and eat meat i give credit regarding the graduation high school that child as well had lived here her entire life here yeah that's true mean with a six year old you haven't really started school yet so that person is going to have some time to adapt i think several these cases point to that effect that the kids of this age can adapt and at least in my opinion i mean as i'm writing this brief thinking of these circumstances it is one of the other but in this particular case to me allowing this mother custom though to a parent to move north and be with her husband in one household outweighs the the disruption this going to be cost of the children at this age they are going to be disrupted but what laurie pointed out her testimony was for example she doesn't necessarily think it's the school it's the the parenting that allows these kids to be successful and do well in school where they are mimi the i'd like to take them with me and in live back where i'm from and they'll do just as well there and they'll have friends in fact they've already got didn't him and from there i think she might have seen that yeah she may have said that and she was the one that told the jail she didn't she wanted she didn't say i want to stay with dad said i want to stay in my friends now and to me that this shouldn't be much he's not a day to day guy so you can't really argue that now i'm not seeing him did any more because he doesn't now with with her visitation schedule he's going to see him just as much in my point is the  consider that didn't even discuss it so i think the trial court in this particular case as made obvious errors in its decision and statements that are contrary to the law so to me not only is this based on facts but it's also based on the evidence or the the ruling that is improper i think it's improper and i'm not again this is my reading of it but  said that first with regard to calling born he disregarded i i don't think that's correct i think that that's his argument and it's an assumption we don't know what the court fully considered we know that he made an order but i can tell you that when reading this order you look at equity factors don't they have friends you know they have friends here but one of them said not up there and i think that's accurate so this found by monday ask yourself if your if it's true and i assume it is that your client was true other than maybe the same land and we're the only two that were in the room when the trial was held and and he was acting he was involved in i'm not questioning that i believe it was his children  their lives but he was busy with that's graphic and she was the primary care for him that's true and right now he's seeing them every other weekend as i may point out that the record reflects that he hired two new employees some time ago years ago to cut down on his travel he began to sell travel so now there is an exhibit in the record with regard to his travel schedule he testified that he  can't tell you that i don't have that at the tip of my i'm sorry you know if you get seven autocomplete yes he does yes he does and i think it's a tuesday every tuesday correct me if i'm wrong i believe it's every tuesday he picked the other week yes i believe so you have to understand too that these people live in the same community it's it's a community home has a grid and they live on the opposite end so these kids come and go and in fact the older child which is not an issue here but i know that's been brought up so i'm going to address it live with get to go back he has been an active father he has taken steps so he is fair and i disagree and my brief points this out with the position that he missed eighty seven of ninety conscientious judge he knows the law and he rules from the bench unless you give him a case or if you need to review something he'll say i'll repeat case and i'll take it under  bum if you give him the case in advance he'll read it any one of the breaks and he will say i've reviewed the case law you look at this order i want to get back to where i was or his i've answered your question family there's no doubt indirect benefit is something to consider i agree with that but i think in this case all you happy all you happy is  three married one wants to go up there and therefore that's an indirect benefit and i should go there's more to it than that let's look at these kids let's look at the stability they've enjoyed all that irvine it's wonderful grades the argument is well she's the day to day care taker and it's because of that that they get good grades i totally disagree with that i totally disagree with that i think that helps but bruce testimony said he did of custody and he ruled there was not a material change and we didn't appeal it because that's true there's not a material change the reason i bring that  i hear this punch we're punishing laurie because she's married to someone and she can't move on with her body and i know that there are a couple cases that say we should not subordinate right before she remarried she entered into an agreement that says to the best interest of the children to be here ok and then she says i fall for this we're currently right now currently down i mean that we signed an agreement are we talking about currently we're talking about right now i don't see that that was a big oh she did issue here and then shortly thereafter some less than two years i believe it's in my grief oh i changed my mind i want to go live up north now i was there and did hear the testimony i know as was reported out i'm bouncing around a little to how to get off your your script a little bit but his point was we well we are forcing mom to stay in el norte no we we are not forcing anyone to stay that's that's not true she can go to wisconsin bruce also did a proposed order that reduce traffic and that's in the record so they did they did work on that and i think i think it can be done but let's look at the best interests of these children again this is the only home they've ever known they're comfortable they have stability they have friends in the neighborhood they have friends at school they are getting good grades they are well established they have friends of gold friends with children in the neighborhood that one case mentions that blood relatives i think that's why i say it's like i read so i don't know whether that's a big a big difference but i read one of the cases the blood relatives we're not forcing her to stay here we are shadowing her here she made this decision and i want to focus on these children why why are we going to force this move on these kids they that one of them gets carsick and i don't remember which one it is one of them gets carsick they hate to travel most of the visitation is going to be time travel and i think that that's not in the best interest one of the issues i think questions came up that her testimony about mood i asked her those questions i said you're going to move up north in the chicago area heard her testimony i believe magic yes and and whether she was stumping the nose or not mr reed wasn't there this court was there but she comes off as what i want i'm going to get and whether that's relevant or not how can it be and they say oh that shows punishment towards lord what a no no you have to understand there are custody issues that  here to not just to remove that's material change to a different standard but who's to say that when he says it's not the best interest and he takes says i'm taken aback  not punishing the saint michael what kind of money considering her children her young children's best interests would up and move up into the chicago area knowing no no family no nothing isn't that something a judge tauriel could have considered best interest i think so i don't think it's   don't want to read it to you i know you know what it says the father in paragraph troop was active he was active church korea well you can't you it's it's hard to to put yourself judge when he hears the evidence he sees the demeanor of the witness he looks and he can judge credibility and i think the law's clear that you know you can't put yourself in the place up of the evidence of the schools we're tending we're we're no better in wisconsin in fact i ask are you never stepped foot in the west appears school districts the court made its findings now i also know from reading cases that he doesn't have to make findings on every piece of evidence he hears or every factor in fact this case he would have there was no issue with what is the father's motive for objecting to them or the mother smoke was an issue here i think they're both the people  the judge is not required maybe behind on every little fact that the decision would be as long as the court record i'd like to talk a little bit about the standard review the manifest way how can one rule that this was against the manifest weight of the evidence and there was an abuse of discretion i think the only way we can do that is you look you say is it unreasonable is it arbitrary was his and clearly i look at this case there is one thing mom wants to go live to wisconsin she'll be happy therefore it's in the best interest i've written the case says that and that's  if we're going to say and like i said i read no case says oh if you want to move because you remarry there you get a move if that's what the rulings going to be then i think it's going to have to be an exception to the to the war with no network of family support we're not talking the kids we're coming more her her home is too large to maintain her glory again in wisconsin lori would go back to the town in which she was works there she would live in one state under one roof rather than n o l annoying a separate household laurie would be happier as a result of living with her husband her happiness would allow her to enhance the quality of life of the children you get a statement presented to you today that well what i what laurie why she's going to get what we really properly consider that you know i'm assuming that i know the court won't consider that but again we're just trying to prejudice the court here i think a statement like that nothing is further from the truth this is a lady who takes care of every need of her kids and didn't ask to move until two years after she'd been married to this gentleman was constant so nothing is further from the truth of what laurie wants  do she can move anywhere in illinois couple these cases i was involved in means and insight singer i was involved in both those cases were where you were basically with the court says you can move anywhere in illinois and if you've got to change visitation to general quality lives improve it not the kids and then not to want to say why the kids hasn't proved it to me that's an error so not only do we have factual circumstances here that i think are in it way in favor of allowing the move but we also have statements made by the court that are clearly wrong in my mind  anyway that those are the main things i'd like to highlight and as was pointed out and she's also acting the best into the kids when she comes up with a reasonable and realistic visitation schedule to accomplish to you know also that work for both sides is is just a whole point out we're not talking about