it's important to remember that the trial court in this case reserved two issues it reserved the issue of transportation costs and it reserves the issue of child support child support need to be modified in light of the difference the overnights that the parties would or the children would have with the parties given the relocation the court needs some additional evidence on the incomes what the incomes of the parties would be and on what zero for easter allows for an immediate appeal from quote a custody or allocation of right all responsibilities judgement or modification of such job that's correct that's correct got it and if we look at section five slash six hundred d of the marriage where they at section defines lentil responsibilities as well both parenting time and significant decisionmaking responsibilities with respect to a child that's wrecker's so under that definition would no decision modify in the party's parenting time necessarily be a decision modify the parental responsibilities judge and the reason i ask this is because paragraph twenty one of the trial court's order states expressly that quote a prime relocation the not say anything about relocation judgment and that is different then for example rule three zero six a five where the supreme court in its rule does specifically talk about relocation judgments i agree with the judge i agree with with the court and with opposing counsel that this order this order entered by judge me and jerry does modify the parental rights and responsibilities clearly does the problem with that is what if it had denied what if judgment juries order had denied my petition for relocation would that be appeal under three of six or be under three or four of the six no clearly would nobody argues that it would so if my kitchen had been denied it would not be an appealable ord but if it's granted in a specific way then it is an appealable order i maintain that that is a bizarre and untenable approach to appellate jurisdiction now the other thing is what if what if judge me and juries order had said i that the petition for leave to relocate was granted but that the only thing that he was going to change as it related to printer runs rights responsibilities was pick up and drop off time now that would to some degree modify the parental rights and responsibilities from what had previously existed under the custody bizarre slippery slope is what it is and it's it's a trap for the unwary it makes the decision as to when you have to file a notice of appeal if you have to file a notice of appeal at all completely  i agree with that your honor mehta fact i would say there are three forms three methods of getting here one is three zero for a d or three or four a it would have been very simple for danielle fact in to ask the pando which said you can't do that well hit three or four b that said well in certain circumstances you don't need three or four a language you have the avenue of three or four c if it's a certain type of order and this certain types of orders were sent and then three of six if it's a different kind of work i agree with that your honor and i think the meat in their brief very carefully address the issue of three or four a jurisdiction where it's a non final order and i agree with the meat he's assessment of that i agree that there would be no jurisdiction there would be no fat final order and i think the appeal here is three o four b six she doesn't make an argument that this is a three o six if an interlocutory type of appeal and the meet  go into a long thorough discussion of how it's possible under certain circumstances for the court to treat an appeal as under three o four b six if it was incorrectly handled what we call a relocation case is not a modification of custody even where the parents have joint custody as a matter of law so bad garn rogan are diametrically opposed to the third district in this case i think that it's untenable for the court to to interpret three o four b six in a way that makes relocation judgments modification of custody judgment when they deal with custody the problem is that there's too much leeway there's too much of a gamut between clearly what the court did in this case which was changing custody because we've got a relocation all the way from east galesburg illinois to virginia beach virginia that completely upset the applecart as it relates to parental rights in response clear but what about is from a policy perspective which is important in how we're going to interpret three zero four b sex from a policy perspective does it make sense to say that well appellate counsel or trial counsel in deciding whether or not a notice of appeal and when to file by others they have to sit down and look at that order and they have to say what does this implicate parental rights and responsibilities and to what degree does it implicate parental rights and responsibilities and then they've got to figure out they've got to guess what the appellate court or with the eloise from court is going to with or they're going to agree with them or not because it's a balancing test that's not how under six o three or four b right yes then that row the rule itself was a matter to add this new language about modification yes because before i was defined as six ten relocation is six so not so that the rule doesn't track them out of the change in the language ok i agree with that i mean relocation is six zero nine it's neither six o three or six ten right right and the committee come and says three or four b is about sixteen and six or three that's right but the language gets them and it adds this other language about exact language used by the rule so the order stated express to you that it does so where is the gassy he said what guessing is required because if it had been slightly different you honor if it had been slightly different if it had been a twenty five mile move or let's say a twenty six mile move i guess to burlington iowa instead of going to virginia beach virginia it's very possible that the court could have just granted the relocation petition and said and i'm going to make the pick up and drop off site somewhere different than it is right now let's say it had been east galesburg or knoxville because they live two miles apart now they can live twenty six miles apart so the court could have said now i'm going to make the pick up drop off site o'clock illinois would that be a modification of parental rights and responsibilities but that's that's the bizarre aspect of that treating a denial as not appealable but a grant as appealable so long as the grant has some language that addresses parental rights and responsibilities there's no guidance in the rule about how sufficient or how how much of a of a modification of parental rights and responsibilities has to exist it just has to to some degree do that is so they don't get into a whole the reality of matrimony on post dissolution practice is that you get all sorts of variations on the theme and it could be it could be as simple as saying that one party because well but the rule appellate jurisdictional rules typically deal with the issue of what type of judgment is appealed and when you're looking at what type of judgment when you're trying to classify the type of judgment you look at the pleading you look at what kind of petition was filed if it's a petition to relocate then the judgment is on a petition to relocate so if if if that is not appealable if it's be n but it's appealable if it's granted that's that's a bizarre situation that's not a usual appellate court rule usually it's of peel of all denied or granted because the type of order or rule that it is now i'm not saying that that can't be the rule that could be the rule i would suggest the way to make that the rule is for the supreme court to amend its rule the supreme court could always a man rule three zero four b six to specifically enumerate relocation judgments appeal immediately appeal that would be the way to do it not to create a more complex case law solution that is very nuanced subtle and issue that is very dear near and dear to my heart and that is the overreaching of the appellate court as it relates to the merits the standard of review this case is governed by eckert and calling born a fact this case is almost identical to calling for and it seems to me in doing the research and reading the cases that every so often every five years every ten years the iowa supreme court has to get back involved exactly what happened in acar that's exactly what happened in calling born and now it's happened again and there's two of the four judges two of the four judges that have heard this case agree with ty fact that the relocation is appropriate now how can that be an reasonable arbitrary not based on any evidence i would suggest to this court that that can't possibly be true where you've got two judges including the one that actually heard the testimony and reviewed the evidence thinks that it's in the best interest of the children to move with their father how those two judges can both be found to be arbitrary unreasonable and not looking at any of the evidence and that's what the standard review is the standard review of course is a clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence standard and the case law suggests or states that a decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the court's findings are unreasonable arbitrary and not based on any of the evidence that's a very deferential standard it seems my outworn my name's dan orders and you can probably tell i'm in the cold club this morning as well my apologies and if i have to take a drink of water and middle my comments i do apologize i agree with mr  all cases are difficult i could go on short so with with that as a backdrop and i think you would agree that the best interest is is actually it's a specific fact questions related to the case of him short what do we do with that i would have several responses to that your honor number one i think that if i was a trial court judge and i never wanted to be returned o removal case i would make sure that that hearing didn't last just a half a day and make sure lasted three days if i could do a little bit better i'd make if i'm just and i'd make my opinion not thirteen pages long i'd make it twenty pages long and i would go through every single case  cite every single you know item of testimony that i thought supported my opinion and i would know that if the manifest weight of the evidence standard of review with one to be applied as my opposing counsel once  majority sidestepped the standard of review that we've been talking about and that is that would say that they re wait wait the evidence and came down on the other side is that the no i don't think that that is the appellate court's role to wait to to be the trial court and reweigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses but i do think that the appellate court has a role and i think that that role is to evaluate the decision under the manifest weight of the evidence standard and that cannot be and is not no review just as long as the very some you are you saying that the twenty pages the three days was are you saying that that was just a sham to avoid reheard reversal oh absolutely not no i was just arguing that i don't think that that should be though a litmus test i think that i don't think that maybe i'm not saying this very well i don't think that should be a litmus test as to how long the trial court's opinion is or how many items of testimony and evidence for reference by the trial court i would say this i'll try to keep my anymore anybody can go for any reason so the cliff notes version of the scenario is my client mr fact and married since two thousand and four moved to gilbert illinois in two thousand and eight they had lived in virginia beach for about ten months in two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight my client is a knox college professor with six out of fourteen overnights with the children and with some after school visitation literally as in essence been a daily presence in their life at of fine arts degree is a montessori school teaching certificate and he has a dental hygienist license he works in peoria for aspen dental but doesn't agree with their business practices and he leaves he gets a job in moline at another dental office he get fired four months later applies for unemployment but gets the nod on the basis of misconduct he decides at the time of the relocation here he finds substitute employment part time making twelve thousand dollars a year as a compliance officer safety officer for the city of deals for he decides at the time of rehearing that even though he lives in galesburg not going to search for dental hygienist jobs in peoria and i can search for dental hygienists jobs in the quad cities and i've looked  close we're going to can't find any but my parents nobody else but my parents live in virginia beach virginia i can't tell you a dental office in virginia beach haven't named one haven't applied to one haven't had an interview with one but i've got a job at recreational equipment in r e i doing retail sales for between nine dollars and fifty cents an hour and i forget the upper range there in fifty something like that  the virginia beach schools are wonderful we don't have to test if we don't have standardized testing results we don't have teacher to student ratio of we don't have a list of extracurricular activities but believe me they're wonderful the schools are much better than in knoxville illinois there's a museum there there are six or seven art festivals a year and there's a national surfing competition and really really good concerts take place there including like metallica plays on the beach i don't have a fiance there i don't have a wife there none of the facts and circumstances of this case are like we see in other cases where maybe somebody wants to move from the chicago suburb and we're going to hear something about this from problem allowing todd facon under the circumstances as presented at this hearing were i was dumbfounded doesn't matter how i feel about it but i'm just saying i was facon to relocate to virginia beach virginia under the circumstances as he presented them when my client and yell facon is almost a daily part of their life room other extracurriculars knox college professor involved in their daily lives since the day they were born i was dumbfounded so to answer question i think that the appellate court properly applied the manifest weight of the evidence standard and overturn the i think from a macro level there are two aspects to this case the merits which i've kind of spoken about here at the beginning but then there's also the jurisdiction and before i forget i do want to i think i can answer mr outpourings question about well what if the petition had been the nine well that would be a final an appealable order under three zero you know he would appeal it under three zero one you file a notice of appeal within thirty days and there would be jurisdiction it would be a final order know find that there's touristic and if there's a proper basis the amicus pointed out that i filed my notice of appeal within three days of the judge's ruling three of six would require me to have filed something in the appellate court within petition for temporary relief they've got circumstances that require quick action a look they think needs to be quick action from the prob court they could get temporary permission to relocate with the children statutes what we mean by real location and what we mean by modification i think that's the problem we have here and it's argued that well sometimes relocation doesn't mean modification sometimes  pretty clearly the rules have to mean something more specific than that yeah how do we do all the fact that throw six specifically not temporary or interim says relocation orders final order on the issue of relocation and the issue of the modification of parenting time which is the modification of the allocation of parental responsibilities so every mouth occasion order is fin unless it's temporary i believe that yeah i mean unless there was some mechanism like of the crowd court said well i'm doing this now but it will be reviewed in three months i don't think that would be final but i think if nothing is left to be said on the subject like in this allocation of parental responsibilities there was no request for a modification of child support or transportation costs but the judge did that and so those remain pending i do not believe it as a final final order in the classic sense in terms of the entire controversy and everything pending because there is child support and transportation costs and so there's a difference between a final or  i believe that this was a final order on relocation and the modification of parental responsibilities i do not believe it was a final order in the sense of three zero one and three zero three because it did not resolve everything pending before the court you agree that or do you think there should be a bright line rule i do you know i was probably counsel as was mr al corn for his client but feel free to ask modification of the allocation of parental responsibilities and i want to be i think mr al gore and i would both agree that this area of the law it would be wonderful if we could bring some simplicity to it and and my position is really that simple your honor was correct the allocation of parental responsibilities is a statutory term it means something it's crystal clear and the i am  the parental responsibility means both parenting time and significant decision making responsibilities with respect to a tryout that's what it means now you know that i think anything for sure raise the question about being a slippery slope for you  relations lawyers knowing what to do so you know what's the bright line rule that we should set for you know the bright word i don't think another lawyer could think that with regard to relocation and the modification of parenting time it was final that was it it wasn't final in the three zero one of the three three sense but it was final now the thing is and i pointed out in my brief and perhaps it's my strongest argument i think it's my simplest argument if this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction if that is what you all conclude and that there was not jurisdiction under three or four b six then you all have concluded and must be at peace with now now whether the rule changes in the future or not that that's obvious up to you guys but if this appeal is dismissed then you all have to be at peace with the fact that the allocation of parental responsibilities means one thing under the relevant substantive statute the i am d m a and it means another thing in supreme court rule three hundred four b sex because there is no question that todd fact can sought relocation and the modification of the allocation of parental responsibilities parenting time and he received both of those things in the trial court so i appeal under three o four b six because this is a modification of the allocation of our transportation costs rulings and then it would be a final order in hindsight i suppose i could have gotten a thrill for a finding i i i monday morning quarterbacking myself because my client iron front of you here today perhaps because of that but i don't to me it's very clear the allocation of parental responsibilities means something and unquestionably this appeal falls under that opposing counsel says that this rule means something i would suggest that standards of review also me some and a standard for view that gives deference to the tr in litigation at the trial court level that's the main reason behind deferential standards of review we can talk about what exactly a standard or review means and how it is there a deferential standard or review and we all agree it's a differential standard review why well because finale happens in the trial court and deferential standards of review why because a losing litigants know that their chances on appeal are very very slight so you get resolution fast and cheat when you've got a deferential standard review why does that matter why do we care about getting resolution finality quickly and cheaply because people have to live children have to live they have to know where they're going to go to school parents have to know whether they can move to be with their dying mother who's got stage five renal failure or not it's been almost two years since todd fat can filed his or serve his notice of intent to move by the time this court rules has no aspersions on how long it takes for appellate litigation by the time this court rules it will have been two years since todd wanted to move and took the first statutory action to do that now yes where you tell us where is he or the children they are still here there was a there are still are still a nice galesburg they didn't move because judgement theory put a stay in place ok for until april and then when april came and went when the over when the appellate court overturned the trial court mr fact in decided to stay here rather than take extraordinary action move in then problem you know maybe before stick to come back but there was a stay in place the stay didn't last quite as long as the as it needed to because the  took a little bit longer than three eleven allows to to rule but be that as it may there was a long period of time where mr fact can didn't move the children didn't move and so what happened during that and that's just two years if this case goes back for lack of jurisdiction we get to do this all over again so maybe it's four years so we took a thirty twelve year old who will now be sixteen years old we took a seven year old who will now be eleven years is a few weeks it was a few weeks longer than the the supreme court rule out the thrill of it was into no wasn't too long it wasn't a significant it's just that my point is that when you when you involve litigation on issues it's will move if he gets the appellate court reversed but in that two year period that is already elapsed those children had to live at a standard of living that was much lower than judgement jury found that they would have been virginia beach their educational level was lower than judge man jury found they would be in virginia beach their right their grandmother has been two more years in stage five renal failure and the children haven't been able to establish as close a relationship as they might otherwise have for two years my point is that standard riverview mean something and they mean something because we're in this type of post dissolution litigation there's a standard review on relocation that is very deferential and it so the trial courts can make decisions and those decisions for all intents and purposes become final unless there is some manifest and that's that's essentially what i would i would like to see obviously is that the court address the merits but as an officer of the court i had to bring to the court some attention the lack of with the potential lack of jurisdiction and so i had to point that out and argue that what's in my client's best interest is that the court find jurisdiction and move to the mariners and apply the standard view how it's supposed to be applied like in e good argument on the jurisdiction issue either way this needs to be sent back either on jurisdiction or on the merits of this case needs to go back i'm afraid that what's going to happen to be frank is that this court is going to find lack of jurisdiction send it back judgement jury gets to find the child support and the transportation cost issues and then danielle appeals again to the appellate court and we're back on the same thing and who knows what the public were going to do the second time around maybe there's a p r way maybe it's granted maybe we're back up here that would be a travesty when the standard of review here is so deferential and judge me and jerry did such a careful job such a thorough job at you know mr mr courtis stood up here and commented on thirty one of my opponents brief what the court found what those findings were the findings of fact and conclusions and they are compelling they're certainly not arbitrary they're certainly not unreasonable and certainly the court can't find that that there wasn't any evidence to support the trial court's fine there are no further questions i will simply reiterate our