it's required regardless of the time constraints that there are usually formal he said and we're going to do that in your case to please you see but the lawyers if you would be kind enough to approach and identify yourself for the record years since she was approximately nineteen the saddest said sorry for the interruption but i said hopefully you've gained from watching our first argument we have i can assure you we've all read the briefs in great detail and understand the factual underpinning proceeding i'm free to create there was an attorney for the child george feinberg that was appointed to represent michael's interests notwithstanding that he'd already reached the age of majority and the only reason why there be such a point nick is because in any other finding then as far as whether or not he's disabled under any standard you know i believe it is not because because section five thirteen provides that application for disability support in the name for your post which saying well so are you agreeing that if if we were to conclude that he is fully emancipated dealt first that it really matters little whether he suffers from some kind it is that is correct if today if the if the ruling was that that as of the filing of roberta's petition to increase support he was unmasked in my office in advance paid adult whether he is disabled that is not rocked now there's something some kind of contest here about and the younger brother testimony was that michael moved because his father moved him out of the house and michael himself testified that he didn't want to so i don't believe that that there is such a bright line test i think in the quite get up nothing here to me gave the fact that michael had and his father's rationalization that you want to become eligible for social security payments therefore even though you have other reasons why you may want  stay you're going to move and his neck consistent with apparently other decisions about at least arguably about whether to continue to work more hours when it might have an impact on the social security payments that are made me then there's certainly a level of oh of emancipation or take that space out there's certainly a level of self sufficiency and we can all agree what one end of the spectrum looks like and we can all agree what the other end of the spectrum looks like but i think we can all agree that there is some disability here of some nature and the question is whether it when it was actually signed off on provide for the kind of situation you're describing now when they greet to contribute fifty dollars and even back in one thousand what was it apple really a realistic i mean are you describing something that fits with what the parties agreed to even back in ninety three about the need to provide for him in a full way the mirror seven agreement only says that he  receive five thirty so there's no other specific statement that says that his support is going to be limited in any kind of a fashion and the evidence that was at stake is fact that was fifty dollars a month  provide for all these things that you're saying he can't provide clearly was how well what was important and clear at the hearing and this is stone testified to it was that mr stone at the time said that he could not afford to pay anything more honor that it's dependence it doesn't get charged against him because it was that very dependence that caused him to be unclear in addition to his father's change in circumstances where by he was able very easily to contribute to about you know the assets of mr stone it's that the piece of real estate is exactly in trust for members of the family it is correct it's correct but only apply basically the kind of issue and situation where you are directly dipping into the account but taking it into account as being part of the general financial condition all wouldn't be prohibited but during just my life time to the father before retiring well in this case in this case he's reached retirement age has an obligation to take funds out on an annual basis or be subject to penalties that's number one the number two is that was never even our primary argument in terms of his ability to provide support for michael because this is a man who is still earning income and yet didn't swas that in two thousand and nine last he said that there is time to reach the age of retirement through that seventy one year all i can tell you that there is personally that there's a big difference between reaching an age of eligibility to retire and actual retirement but that he testified that he had three hundred fifty thousand dollars of either collected or intice a paid the income himself now in retirement not his wife's in the year that we were in court said oh you know i don't believe that you even need to reach the issue although again i disagree that the court does not have the fact the obligation when assessing all aside the eighteen percent the eighteen pounds and square foot deal that he was about to close or his lawyers were you get three hundred thousand dollars in there without reaching into his wife's all the marital and comp america last that was all income that he had projected that he would collect in two thousand and nine clues of of the eighteen thousand square foot the all that you refer to was kennedy on had learning disabilities to get psychological problems and it was intice a peyton kennedy that within two to three years of the decision he graduate from high school and that he'd be able to hold a job at a gas station so it was listed in that decision and he was awarded this adult not one not emancipated disability i mean that case explicit in that decision was the expectation that he would graduate from high school that he would be able to hold a job but that he would not be able to support himself financial regardless of where he lived and i think that when there's too much emphasis put on whether or not the child is living in a parent's residence or in a group home or if he's lucky enough to have the basic level of ability that michael has to be able to be in an apartment and make a meal right a boss but those are not things that lead to financial independence and those do a rule of law is set up in a way to give the individual the best chance that the greatest incentive to do the best they can without being panelized by reaching a very basic level where they basically living in think that that really has a bearing on your honor when you say i don't because the statute specifically states that the the very application for the support can come before or after the age of majority so wouldn't the fact of education wing of a very good high school that was he was always a special education is doing when you look at the kind of testing that dr hunt sobel conducted in this case at his level best he's out parading eligible to testify she may be a qualified witness but that doesn't mean that she by force of law will compel the judge to adopt i would ask and i us there's a greater weight to that testimony that testimony from doctor so this isn't even addressed at all in any way but even with taking her testimony basically what are you from this is that he's not capable of working full time that is her self to get would that be one factor that would be considered as opposed to the only thing it's what you want if you consider your testimony basically is basically well he's not capable he's disabled because he's not capable of working full time is there really all she ended up saying she's not said i don't believe that she concluded that that he is disabled because he can't work i think individual that the state inactive fife their team to protect because in the absence of parental support he will be homeless he will not be able to live somewhere where he can afford and in and  judge burton nine days of testimony or period of eight months it just the credibility of a number of witnesses and he found that michael is without  your characterization in your brief that michael was employed for the majority of the time involved when in fact his period of different jobs in each of those jobs there were personal relationships that tripped this person up so s to either a leave him to quit or to be f employment opportunity to determine if there is a core element of disability that is reflected in each of those job experience but again you point to the issue of this ability   judge to have to preserve the rights under the common law unchanged by statute to reject that her testimony and make his own psychological evaluation but that live with were brought up she left to go to california now i suggest to the courts that if michael was not to be executed that reporter still would not have lost him ten years ago to live in california and she testified under oath that she has salinas no desire to have my good be with her and she's actually very comfortable with michael being in chicago while she is seventeen hundred miles away it's not emancipation jurado pointed out a few minutes ago regarding the issue of custody custody of the parents custody them over custody of their father he's not in the custody of a mother he's not in the custody of the father he's not in the custody of anyone well do you agree with counsel suggestion that somehow this custody was transferred from the mother to the product it assume legal responsibility for a brother one thing it is clear and that is that don't you agree that the record suggests that without some kind of help from a number of people he definitely would not yet able to even afford to live testified as to how much that he can't go beyond in terms of part time employment before which is that if it's will be taken away because he was still paying at the time for some over payment doesn't have medical insurance to the extent that he doesn't actually does from the so security disability in addition to the monthly payments he is provided with some form of medical care medicaid and mr stone provided everything that was providing the sixty dollars a week for his roles his mother doesn't know who was doing the groceries with the fifty dollars we thought a sixty dollars so it was a adam that was a week ok all right and that was being provided for of michael parker's release mr stone over a period of time in the terms of additional facts of the court looked to and should look to as your honor as your honor we believe that the correct decision because she did not have the ability to state what she stated up so we can talk about the disability issue but you don't get to the disability issue if you find they  answer which i believe the evidence supports and the abuse of discretion standard applies the disability issue as well and this corpse under the abuse of discretion standard as the court will know even if you their decision but i believe using the standard that is appropriate standard of review this appropriate here judge bacon made absolutely the right decision in her ninety's and testimony reviewed all the evidence and saw the witnesses were placed in this evaluation as question here that there was no economic salt i think bars are i think there was not actually economic sufficiency in particular when michael was working i would point out to the let's just take that forty thousand and take it out of the discussion well i'm just just describing to the north storage for nine years there was a quicken report at the end appear and it was both forty five thousand hours over nine year period that he allegedly spent them  tater first attorneys and over twenty thousand dollars of that was for here restoration project and what point does that make the point is he's providing four hundred dollars a month toward his toward his rent he's talking to home on a regular basis he's visiting him on a regular basis when he when he travels he takes him to the airport he have some get his his his plane reservations he basically is is is it being there as a support  that i understand that that having a disabled member of the family is a is a great stressor on the family and it caused people to make decisions that that are difficult decisions and when you add that to what a family that has been broken apart by the force that exacerbates the circumstances and the fact that we're focusing on these legal issues as required to do does not mean that we are not caring about the circumstances of individuals and the decisions that have been made and you know as you look as you look at it we see that different people in the family have reacted in a different in different manners and we're not here to judge the way that people have have responded to that you know i just want everyone to know that who the nominee euler's that we are not putting our heads into the sand about the the significant issues that go beyond the legalities but we're decision in terms of the facts applied to the law  and circumstances of each particular case that's courtship consider factors including but not limited to whether the minors voluntarily left the protection and influence of the brothel or whether the minors otherwise move beyond the care and control sto whether the minor has assumed responsibility for his or her own or his or her own care her brother the minor continues to need support so clearly the need for support is a back to earth that the  focus on this when there's a lot of the list of things that michael can do that is being the city if you look back at the record he's doing very few of those things without some level of assistance and for instance even living in his in his own home there's testimony repetitive tasks that where if a pipe projects where to a normal person someone bane of that we take care of you call a plumber you deal with it ourselves it was old in a total meltdown and the only reason why roberta stone  was able to leave the state and what she did to do it because of her own financial circumstances and be supported by her car but was because dan is a car ride away to come in and do what needs to be done to help like so i suggest you that there's been a overstatement paul that the trial court level and today about exactly what michael can do so i think that it would be an error to focus to have a lee on his financial dependence of which he clearly yes and also focus on the the fact that he hasn't received any therapeutic treatment during the last twenty years has been his choice because people can't make him do what he doesn't want to do and if there is a circumstance where you're saying that some he's not independent then one would presume that some of these life coping skills would be things that could be improved therapeutic where's where has been the supervision to get that done and what legal authority would someone have at this point to would compel him to do it well it's my point goes to the emancipation point where if let's assume that there is something that big could be done that would be improve matters and his coping skills on a day to day basis but if i want to agrees that they can't compel him to do it nobody is tried to compel him to do it then isn't that a factor that fed argues for emancipation it's it could be a factor that's offset by the testimony that says two things number then testified that he is himself observe the decline of the last decade after the death of michael's grandparents of whom he was very close so i don't know of any authority to suggest that because there's a disability contributions appropriate where there's a demonstrated inability to pay fees without undermining one's financial ability reported stone has ninety thousand dollars in fees just thirty thousand dollars left to her name she has no significant income if she does not receive a contribution her financial stability will not be undermined it will be death it is a clear abuse and discretion i ask your honour's to look to the sure case that was  and the question of whether they're reasonable under the circumstances and open as i'm looking at two silent lawyers attending this proceeding but it's a place but it's also a case that's taken i think a lot of on that point alone because the court talked about that open the door for counsel to talk about it at all real court room there was discussion about report a stone refusing to accept a pretrial recommendation that mr stone was willing to take and it clearly had an impact on how the judge dealt with the case at the end of the day all right and mr fink on fairness we're going to give you a chance to respond on that one issue if you choose to