but at one time they were gauged to each other and were planning on being married and i think the chronology of the relationship between jessica should always know just to johnson and jeremy carter is important to an understanding of the issues in this case particularly the removal issues because this was not just a dating relationship as i think has been stated in the police brief but this was in fact a very long term involved relationship involving this now obviously that's a pretty basic we we have a very large record here there were a number of days of testimony overall a very substantial period of time but those are those are the basic issues the basic facts in regards to the arrangement between saw each other occasionally i think the testimony was a bit they may see each other monthly some but most the visits were here in illinois where megan his family and there were only a couple of visits  over the entire time they were together in colorado they became engaged in may of two thousand tents we had a meeting in november getting gauged in may and then they were married in the bahamas and harvest two thousand   there were times when she would colorado she was not she was not present she doesn't spend much time in these children nor has she spent much time in colorado and i raise all these points of fact because of the three major decisions made  particularly in light of the points that that we made in regards to some of the considerations that we felt was speculated there was no evidence presented on these on these issues for example  the judge use  with all things being equal to the law for the removal and hand and as you pointed out a brief there were a number of things that the court i don't know if you want to say ruminated about but certainly speculated about you know what and you know how the things go sometimes sometimes judges write out everything that they're going to say and sometimes judges look at all facts that are come up to the bench and say here's my decision and then start kind of going along and thinking about it and they are making the decision on certain points well i think that's a little bit of what happened here in regards to judge you because you but you know there's a speculation in this discussion because there was some of this about jeff sick of becoming a stay at home mom if she was allowed to move with the child to colorado because of the hum of the new husband's income there was no evidence presented he talks about whether or not he's always wondered whether there were studies about whether or not children do better with stay at home moms and that kind of thing but there's no evidence of that there's no evidence there was no evidence presented by by jessica in the trial who are showing that as a result of her being a stay at home mom or in other words not having  we pointed out in elsewhere in the in our brief essentially the way that she had set up her schedule with jeremy when jervy was seeing the child on tuesdays and thursdays and on weekends the way that she set up her were schedules he essentially was already a stay at home so that was really not going to be an improvement or a change or something that was going to be better for her than sophie she was already doing and i think that the record bears that out moms and then on the other hand he speculates about just his future employment in colorado as a as a nurse even though there's been no testimony about the job market there's been no testimony about about which she was good have there been some statement that maybe she might work after the child was in school but there was no testimony about that there was some testimony by mr johnson about the school district which a judge found to be equal all with the school districts that were already that the child would have been in but that was kind of irrelevant anyway because the child's only three is not yet in school so there's really no school comparison there was not any comparative presentation of where he should the school testimony that he need johnson would be have twenty years in the service and could retire and going into private industry and that and get a job in private industry they're busy on testimony about  service for another ten years so that the courts speculated about that and use that as part of the justification in regards to you to be an enhanced one of the quality of life because mr johnson might retire might get a job in private industry but again that was not the status of the situation at the time that this case was heard he was in the service he's here thank you he was subject to being we redeploy he was subject to all of the things that the service are the the situation this is that that is basically do this the substance of the of the judge's decision i obviously there are other issues in this case of we stand on our brief in regards to in regards to  the kids but also his very good job there here is approximately sixty five thousand dollars gross i see testifying in my client testified this will allow her to be a stay at home mother back to us is a huge piece of evidence which would not the other parents haven't see them i don't think that destroys any hope of the bond is going to be big distances of time absolutely but that's true in any move ok's that's even true here the generals don't when they're both in the same town was he saw her and her new husband or between him and her kids simply by stating it those are the facts but they can't follow and they didn't listen and testament and testimony saying that's right just a bad situation she should be able to be removed because of that more to be  his job he works in the middle of a mound and he does basically work with outer space so it's very specific to that specific area so i believe he testified that he will were married and if the core counsel i believe in trial had asked him if the court  i think that that's what they're arguing by but i believe the testimony was they both probably misses and when he threatened to get a restraining order on my client's husband i believe maybe i believe they were married at that point so this is not her husband and he's not accepting that to further that one of the exchanges in this was in november so we've gone almost a full year the grandparents went to pick eva my client's parents they were simply we were in the father was wearing a jacket they had the air force insignia on and in this put the father in child she's only to get his point about the three are by the we just turned three in september but it and she's here remember this type of stuff and i think that spirit of concern here this person has had a full year to get over this relationship with the mother of buddy and caesar because she does not have to work she's got a bigger house even will have more room to run around she's got simply it's two more siblings and only the testimony show that the siblings all get along mighty frequent as you pointed out earlier your honor no these people w not able to spend a lot of time together because he had to travel in the expensive colorado and they both have kids but the time they did spend together they both testified it was great you know that the kids all have a long that going in a year was difficult i think they should it was a genuine lov going to be allowed by the courts so is it fair to say that something now that works in her favor she wanted and did it when she knew maybe she wasn't going to be able to stay there with him and so now t could should be with her husband so you know if it really is a factor that weighs in their favor it seems to me to be a little bit maybe disingenuous in th i don't know if you can use the reason for this petition and has in their term something that's really only benefits the mom in terms of the child's so she's now no longer working my client she will have a go with her twenty four seven eight is not in school except for the breaks when she goes to visit her father so i leave that to misstatement my counselor argue well there's one big difference is she won't be able to see her as much or more and i also be happy if i was in there in colorado and sicko as far as that goes i don't think we have divorce or a case of people are now married in this house broken from the get go there's never going to be a great outcome into it there's always going to be traveling weather pointing to justice o'brien was a self fulfilling prophecy by of by getting married by establishing that situation where she was with this gentleman in colorado she created situations where she would have to had a lot of reasons why she would want to get out of illinois but that the court didn't find out we didn't allege that it's just the as i was listening to the argument here it's not like she had reasons why it would be for her and her his time with a gun i think if the court reviews those calendars as part of the record in this case the court is going to find that unlike what mr tellus said in regards to my client missing visitation in fact he had dish will visitation by agreement but additional time with the child or the above on the two days week in the alternate we can see a giant christmas he had time this week here and there there were there was additional time to get over it so it wasn't just those two days per child so we never stablished with his son would have been with his alternate holidays would have been with his christmas or spring time would have been with the child because they were already at least until january two thousand and eleven they were operating under an oral dad who says i'm going to keep my kid here to get back to mom i think that the record is clear from the testimony from all parties that that my client was involved and invested in this the the basic child who are that's going to be very difficult for him to even resolve that visitation just because of the cost and the distance involved so i think with the court looks at all those factors it really does have to determine whether or not the quality of life of the