or the only issue is you know only what we do if the only issue is who's the residential care and if they were constantly butting heads and those are things for the court to examine but here we have a proper judge who starts out with saying we don't want to you know do this it's it's a it's an unusual thing that we surely shouldn't center except soon unusual circumstances that's about this is a classic case of parties butting heads these people don't course that is not prevent him and did not cause any problems with his cooperation with his wife on matters of their children when they separated the first thing they did was set up in effect  work out throughout the time since their separation they they both participated with the schools mother would like to play more credit father but there's no question in the record was clear that both of them were involved in the children's school life in their after school life didn't tell him to do anything that is requiring but that it really was not a matter of lack of cooperation on parties the father was able to work with the mother of that situation other you post go see if you can put together a joint has he read it and that's the legislature says he could do that if they can't do that he's allowed to enter his own order or he can do what this judge did that is a evidence was the children who want to spend more time with the father both parties of knowledge that's not really much of a falling back here but i think it was apparent that the parents were able to work together just  mother said she wanted to have the final say and she wanted to be a big problem i think that's very much what this is it's she's wanting the power of the situation she's got the better job she's always the better what situation and they've been one one whether it's a florist disadvantage to your argument he makes these statements after he's heard all the other so you may be right in that phrasing it such that he's coming at it from a different direction than you are but having heard all the evidence and having heard that the mother says i believe that your client will continue to use the manner in which we parry for children to interact with me in a way that is the inappropriate and the cross stress to me and that's not going to be in anybody's best interests and i don't think we can agree and that isn't a statement that we've never been able to agree or do something adult in the last year year and a half regarding issues and i'm addressing counseling i've seen someone and yet at the same time i want to take this major role in parenting my children so that i have disadvantaged then i can't seek full employment but i still think that i can be essentially almost a full time parent if you're doing joint custody because it doesn't really cut the duties and half it probably increases a few days of each parent because of the required level of cooperation so i'm i'm not sure that i buy the argument that first of all i don't think the judge soup doesn't know wall i think he may have attitudes about joint custody that might be different than mine he's not asking for a game crease in responsibilities or duties or options he's wanting to continue what the parties have established when they separated when he started you know back joint parenting he wanted to continue that he  that have our own situations including the mother here but that that he was asking that it worked before there's no reason it couldn't continue working well i i'm not quite sure the time frames but i think one of the things that might be being said is that it's not working if we have the incident where it's not working the way it off you'll be had i think it's a minor stories pretty serious given the age of the child the temperature outside in the parking lot and him and out major i mean the number of people that flowed through there and you begin to imagine parents would immediately begin to imagine the kinds of sort of sort of watch the kids you know it's that's an example of where the parties discuss that unresolved that i've you know i guess it's part of you age we remember a time when people do that of the inability of the parents to cooperate work with one another in fact they did talk to each other to solve that matter and i would compliment them for doing that but i would still have serious reservations about the judgment of the person that needed to be persuaded if this is something to be worked out or we saw one of the problems with this case in this type of cases how we start finding how many bad things we can say the father did t that's healthy way of resolving the same but with that the record is has those examples of bad judgment on her side just as well she she takes the kids for a bike ride in one of those runs into a car you didn't work with well it's just they each have had their their shortcomings i think the testimony was that the day before the second hearing sergei the younger boy was found  she seven going on thirty seven and she is also the child of divorced parents who have never stepped foot in from her little mind she said she gave me three reasons why she felt that our position was the right position today she said first of all moms help their children to focus more on homework and housework second she said kids want their money when they're second third she said kids come from their mommy's bellies and have known them longer than anyone else she done made me promise that ties into how to look at this case and it ultimately comes down to how children how we look at the practical issues of why this fast in the best interest and oftentimes it comes down to practical issues such as who is teaching the children values and who are there who's there when things go wrong on the first issue on appeal i tie this practical advice from my daughter today to the issues that point while counsel has indicated that  very rare situation where parents can agree on absolutely anything although the courts do see those case other points to the fact that mother was awarded sole custody once she was awarded sole custody by the trial court that they were able to come to an knows that sometimes that's best for her children and she did that throughout the course of this of these proceedings as we look at six o two point one see the court has to look at the factors in their extraordinary ability to cooperate know that morning that her children were not going to school and that they were severely enough sick that they were going to a supermarket walk in clinic she did not know that until the school called and wonder where the children were by they were not attending school have their benefactor communication it seems to be that mr mosher would have picked up the phone call to her we have a sick child we have a child who is misbehaving and we need to get the child some emergency medical treatment this court has already being affected from germany from america i don't know that doesn't provide me with sound judgment of parenting skills and the ability to have ten alcoholic beverages and still maintain your children  and brings up the issue that while we talk about these unsupervised races we should also look at mom she has left the children home alone i'm too occasional that's why she went to the gym i think the difference in that particular situation as it relates to that judgment is number one mother acknowledged at the trial court level but guess she did she didn't try to downplay that and say well the children were harmed she acknowledges she was under extreme emotional duress at the time so the parties continued to live in the marital home well before the trial actually occurred but she took responsibility she took she acknowledged the behavior and it has not happened as far as writing the bicycles with the children when one of the child was hit i think that we all experience situations as adults and grown ups where you know we like to be there when the child falls off the monkey bars we can't be perfect in the supervision of a situation when the children are with us however there's a difference mom was there at the time she didn't push the child into the road it was an accident and that's all there was and while the public can argue to the squire that well nothing happened nothing bad particularly illustrative to the court that because there have been these instances of throwing glass kicking a door and him acknowledging that yeah he knew that what he was doing was going to cause her extreme emotional duress and yes he did know he did acknowledge that he had anger issues and that as a result of that as a result of that it is an equity or imbalance of power between them yes she does have concerns that they can't that he cannot bring the best interests of the children to the table to to cooperate a factor and that is vision is on her and how to and how to undermine her we have an issue when she is parenting a child who has behavioral problems and he picks up a lighter she directs him to dispose of it and instead father says oh don't worry about it i'll show you how to light it later again that doesn't show up cooperation visitation and there was some testimony that she discontinued that because it was awkward it was uncomfortable and the parties did not have other brain other people or other support systems in the community that would be able particularly instructive here as mr moore argues that joint custody he watched right because he doesn't really want more responsibility he doesn't really want more time he wants more active participation while joint custody does not create a level of participation he creates the level of participation that he wants to have with his children sole custody or joint custody are labels in that regard he has access to a school record there's nothing precluding him from talking to doctors to talking to teachers he testified himself his only participated and attended first then a handful of his children's basketball games he testified that he goes to child's tournaments now only because it used to be that when he dropped them off the parents were a little bit displeased with the situation a little bit were they were displeased if you just struck his children off them laugh and so from that standpoint his level of that has nothing to do with joint custody that has nothing to do with how he chooses to participate how he chooses to be involved with their activities at their school and he's not precluded from any of that with a joint custody i think what he's looking for is more money too he wants to communicate more with mom because there is sort of this this dysfunctional relationship that continues to to occur and to me that that falls more into his layout as to how much activity he wants to have i think he's very comfortable allowing her to make the decisions she has kept in the loop she has invited him to parent teacher conferences as it relates to your child's academic issues he has been asked to participate in counseling the middle child has not been disinvited as sometimes we see with mothers or fathers who have sole custody where they try to shut the other parent out there hasn't been many cases but at the end of the day we have more judgement  standards for the appropriate values of the children and unfortunately they're just they're not that level of cooperation i don't think that is all i have enjoyed custody i know that there was not any discussion by mr more time on the property issues if i may just take a moment and i would just indicate that on those remaining issues from our standpoint it's a little bit difficult to justify some of the arguments on that and that mr mosher presented very limited financial or property evidence at court and it can be very easy to stand in the position of if i don't provide any evidence however i can criticize the evidence that the other side has provided i can tell you that it's routine in a pretrial order final pretrial order in mclean county that the courts have ordered inventory of as and liabilities to provide it's of that they can look at each side's proposed values and equalization portals and in fact i haven't tried a property case that that hasn't had one of those it's not intended to be evidence my client testified to each and every one of the property issues that was addressed in the inventory there was very little on cross examination of her there was almost no revival abends as to any of the values related to that so from our standpoint we feel that to a large extent there was a waiver of many of those issues are raised in the appeal as to the maintenance i don't believe that it was known to the court to the attorneys until the day of trial that mr mosher was actually seeking an award of maintenance ok and he testified that for absolutely two and a half years he'd been too depressed to even more courage continue to maintain unemployment and our position is that he testified that he did not believe he would be able to make as much money as cis wife however that is pure speculation he didn't provide any information as to his job class what type salaries that job classes and and provided little value further asked the maintenance issue  was no evidence that showed that he had for it by any educational or professional opportunities in order for her career and for those purposes we we believe that the court was