that afternoon and may please the court the defendant in that case is appealing the decision of the trial court to it in denying relocation and focusing on what was very clearly in the best interests of the children and as the court is well aware the statute calls for both relocation and allocation for the court to look at what is in the best interests of the children not what are the rights yes yes especially under the new under the new statute yes when she remove the under the old statute the custody statute when she removed the children at that time the good faith was good faith or move all was not  never been disputed she did not file for removal of the children but the reason for that and what she testified to and what her husband testify to as to the location as to why she removed the children for the foreclosure is that she was told in july that she had a month to get out of the house and that was what her understanding was that was what her husband's understanding was and so she didn't understand her now and she should have maybe she should have consulted with an is was it can travelers impression that she also miss would be court regarding her relationship with her new husband on the east coast and her relationship with her family even worse was going to maybe provide for sins or i don't believe so i don't believe he thought that she was misleading the court in any way it was always very clear that they were legally separated i to the court do you read that the chocolate did mention he did mention there was not an intact family and that was something that i addressed in my brief because we don't agree that it was an intact family as far as the relationship with the children w which is what the focus of the removal decision should have been well the relationship and the stepfather would be in consideration because he's not here now only because of separation move because of  well and i think he would still be were separated being would still be where he said he came home or once every couple months yes and he was doing that actually after he got a c d r license before kind of before she moved so you look at i kind of look at the start of the proceedings when she moved august that kind of kicked off what was going on in court even before then he had gotten that c b l license i believe a year or so he even before then and before they were legally separated he was moving and driving  but to say that you know over the road truck driver is an entire family if we apply that all over a truck drivers i don't think that is a standard that we can we can say if you are gone certain days however many days out of the year that you're not  stepfather went to take the older child when she was in a mental hospital when to take her on her day passes and things like that when mom was your younger child so and they talked on the phone several times a week if not daily with both with both girls so even though maybe the relationship their marriage you know they were legally separated they still had a joint parenting agreement but the younger two children and they still the four children all had a great relationship with the father and that was  again and that's another part of my argument is that the best interest of the children if you look at that you look at those relationships and you look at where those relationships well where the flourish and where where the children will be the happiest and that was with what stepfather that leads me to my next question because it seems to me that it could be said that it was reason for the trial court to conclude come to the decision that he did come to because it seems as if there was elimination going on so is it a fair statement to say well i'm alienated the children against their father so much to the extent that now you know they're having mental health problems if they have to be around them they don't want to be around them they love it you with me they want nothing to do with you know is that how we address that issue i saying you know we reward what you've done and you destroying this relationship and so now we're not going to honor that relationship because it's been destroyed b there was a significant kind of push home with regard to alienation of the children by the mother or of the children because of the father it was very clear that the father's relationship the father contributed to the stranger and he did not pastor this relationship the court even noted that it wasn't he was the work nurturing it was in a nurturing relationship between the father and these girls he would have them over to his house the older child in the very beginning stages of litigation alleged not just the sexual abuse but also intimidation such as punching holes in the walls that she told the custody of i wager that and the guardian the evaluator didn't feel that that that the mother was giving this information to the children and causing that nation she felt that it was really coming from the child and the older child has defied that that was coming directly from her relationship and her experiences with her father so i think that you know that alienation is verses which is strange meant here certainly in the course of not a war reward alienation behavior being of the nation but the degree of alienation here  any was was very low it was more the children and their experiences with their father and that happened because even after jenna the older child was not visiting with the father the younger child testified at the allocation of responsibility and that's a difficult situation if i'm a trial should i become persuaded that i have to do something and i've got a choice between a mother who my assessment of her is that there are some credibility issues perhaps i would think that based on the unfounded sexual abuse report my dissatisfaction with the living arrangement as it was represented to me though you've done a good job of explaining you know another way to look at that and i think that the president alienation and mental health is the ability and mental health in general both of their homes and direct the filing of adjuvant the troops the law would suggest the policy of the law in the same although i would say yes i ought to be favoring actually poisoning or unintentionally perhaps having a really bad effect on c s in terms of relationships and how they view their mother and their father why isn't it reasonable for me to do what i did bad s is placed in a tough situation where she doesn't want to be there where she can get counseling my understanding is there perhaps are other family members that she could relate to there's an extended family or i can leave her in a situation where the oldest child may not i mean she may have continuing problems for the rest of their life and that is going to affect her so what do i do i think the evidence that was presented especially as to c s in particular you know you mentioned the counseling the evidence and it was on refuted that the  stated that he was ordered to counseling several times throughout the letter throughout the legal proceedings over two years and i was involved he was ordered to counseling or there was an order for counseling and he would go two or three times and the guardian ad litum both stated these kids have to be in counseling of course if these kids need to be in counseling do they also indicate that it was pointless with dan to dissipate in counseling given the alienation that was taking place from mom if my understanding if the mother were to participate in the counseling that were the council work no no i'm saying didn't they indicate that it didn't it was unnecessary it was unfruitful there was no benefit to dad participating in counseling as long as the children were in the care of the mother and she was continuing to alienate them as to their father she if they i believe so if they were to stay in counselling but the court ordered that he take them every week that continue and that were thirty weeks and between the first hearing while the first relocation settlement conference and then the hearing and he he went to five i mean and that was phone calls and text messages anything like that even on her birthday and again i do recall some information that there were refusals to speak to dad when you recall i guess he could be in a difficult position when you're a judge a new order someone to do something and they don't do it in you're here arguing that mom was being penalized but it appears to me that the judge is looking at the big picture and not just looking at who did what i told him to do and who didn't truly looking at the best interest of the trial court saw it for the children so i mean are you suggesting that as a penalty for not going to the court order counseling that dad should not have received custody of know certainly not as as a penalty but as far as looking at what is in carly's best interest to take her from the home that she's known for thirty years hurt her and to a home where she's testified that you know there's a pattern of sure there is a pattern of him not speaking to her i mean that was another thing that outgoing hearing is that he she was there and he was either at work or he wouldn't speak to her so she's going from a loving nurturing environment to this environment where will well step mom from the trial court's perspective was manipulative and caused the original alienation some of the alienation is because dad was not nurturing and acted like an a lot of the alienation from the court's perspective at least reading what the court decided looking at the record he does say mom's accountable for that he thinks she's manipulative she's not credible and she caused a parental alienation so i'm left with this choice a review here and you're asking us based on the cold record versus the trial court see in hearing the witnesses and their demeanor and considering what they said in conjunction with what other witnesses  you were just not in as that a position as the trial court to make this decision but i think part of part of the issue and part of what what we're appealing here is that in in deciding the factors as to both relocation allocation of responsibility and parenting time the the court and its in its ruling didn't go into it and it's not necessarily all of the factors but didn't put enough emphasis on the best interest of the child and so what is it that isn't there isn't there an expert testimony as well as or read reports as well as things the court glean from the record or from what else is presented that it was really it could really be important to get c s away from j s or mother away from in terms of living so but that it would not be in her best interest to be place for father and especially because the place where the father was then coupled with completely being cut off from other that was an issue there so with th she's taken from the home that she's now thirteen years ripped away from her three siblings that the testimony showed was very close with all of them in divorce for thirteen years and well though the mother had been the primary caregiver for her thirteen years of life and  they were divorced for about c it was two thousand and eight so six seven years most of the child's life well do we know what the homo's wife before the divorce know not what we don't have any way of knowing what the  he even if you cut that off and just say it's been the last eight years i mean the testimony was that she'd been in the mother's home primarily and every other weekend with the father in a couple of weeks in the summer so there was still that primary care taking and and bonding with the other two siblings the younger sibling that she care further what was important as well as well as that the court really didn't take into consideration as far as they go the grandparents no relationship there and the lack of support that they have defend had here in illinois she she just did not have enough support with practiced excited to be able to take care of her children and there wasn't anybody here to help her and so she really felt backed into a corner when she when she left and then the events  the points that were raised by the should be an argument which you did very well and i hope that you read that i have referenced the references to the pages of the record were not taken the information that it's about seventeen hundred pages of shipboard the trial judge's decision number one if we if we start off with the relocation you have only have to look at the guardian ad litum report by this mccarthy d a recommendation dr appleton did a girl investigation seventy some pages i believe in the record and in addition we took her deposition and she affirmed many of these things so if we look at that is there evidence in the record the motive was when mom decided to pick up and take off last august or august of two thousand and fifty and not last year there was no notice and ok notice is not required under that statute a with land of lincoln legal assistance he didn't know she laughed i had to tell it and how did i find out well one of the neighbors which friendly with mr simpson said oh by the way called him and said your to have were to return to the state of illinois when i filed a petition for a court order and by that he found out she was moving out to north carolina where her mother that moved and i know we say  you have to put that in perspective she didn't come back until some time him october and then only when ordered specifically to get to come back with those kids by judge korea  to complete the school trip that they had already started in north carolina as part of that agreement might get into the issues of counseling and alienation and what have you she was i agree  bring those kids back so dad could visit every other weekend and go to counseling he was to have holiday visitation and the first time that she returned to the state of illinois luke testified that the reason that he used the address in north carolina meaning miss whitaker's address was because he had a cd out he needed to transfer it was a temporary license from indiana in order because he had to have something for a north carolina license and that he came back once every couple of months to visit his children that he had with mrs whittaker he did say he talked on the phone with the others near a good relationship with th prior to court they would have had it together a little bit you look at it some of the rest of these things and we say oh but mom was the primary caretaker  the judge ordered c s returned to illinois as we know from the record and she was returned january two thousand and sixteen else of the hearing in august and also the secondary that we have six weeks loving home during a home primary caretaker she's in north carolina the child is here i think that as of january two thousand and sixteen she lost that back he was no longer the child he had this case for two years you went through all of these i don't see that you missed it when he said i don't have any good choices i hear over child it's been a mental institution for six or seven months up north carolina i think by the second hearing she was finally back in the public high school but that was the first time either that she got home school when she went and did in january two thousand and sixteen not bad they didn't believe forced the child  require a certain amount of privacy you know i think it's appropriate maybe more supervision would've been appropriate if he had knowledge of it which he did not so we couldn't do this and why should the childhood a nerd well i'm having trouble with my dad ok what happened in may that's the sexting incident that was were death on the sexting incident on the phone and obviously got upset with his daughter and brought that up as an issue called man who said you made visit with her in the mental institution it rigidly hold up pictures here's your back here's your bruise this is your dad's hamper and mediately there after she goes in and says to the evaluation of it she said in her deposition believe that she has done more than eight thousand evaluations of sexual abuse she said in her deposition the chances of m that's when mr stimson discontinued based upon what miss and wept all in the counseling now phone calls you continue to call when nobody will talk to you that's in there to the testimony on the record he called maybe about and then at this point he's he's got jumper a order that says no contact with mother until we can figure out how to supervise a choice she doesn't continue to poison the relationship that's what happened after that's not a record so go into it very few things that mr have covered in his argument that i'd like to discuss first thing is that he stated that the report have the guardian of i am kitty mccarthy stated that it was in the best interests of children to leave the third she did three different reports over this time period the first to say that the father should not have unsupervised visitation with the children th children should not be forced to deal with both experts at both times and then also her first report stated that removal was in the best interest of the children because if you remove the children then they aren't resenting their father they're not you know they're old enough changed what she thought that point so the first two were in support of that relocation mr have stated that there was no testimony of what help she received from the grandparents in the record and that's actually a weekend that was missed so the defendant was certainly complying with the court orders at that time and the relationship was continuing with the father and and for mr have to say that the the  imes so that's the reason why that happened and she was in the hospital under intensive mental health treatment for six to seven months again just another the actual extraordinary things in this case as are the sexual abuse  and found that where she didn't believe that any abuse it happened she did believe that jenna had felt that she had had a trauma and that was the most important thing and did not say that it came from jamie it said that she could have happened in the hospital could have been in her deposition she stated that it could have been something that happened in a group therapy session you can get these ideas you think about but regardless of where it came from that it was not that she believed she had the trauma and that was the part that needed to be treated not the trauma of self and finally as to the cutting for jenna and the issues that were there yes there is an expectation of privacy but it's clear that if you're not paying enough attention to be able to cap catch this behavior but mom was the one who found it and mom was the one that was able to get her help and get her in the hospital that she so i would argue that  environment with the mother was more safe and secure and the girls felt that it was more safe and secure them thank you thank you council will take this matter under