prayer for relief that is my bet is contained in my opponent's underlying request for declaratory judgment equipt that the prayer for relief states that the court enter an order declaring that the residents of mali and the minor child is and remains in illinois and that this court continues to have original exclusive  continuing jurisdiction over the issues of child custody and visitation in this case the circuit court grants a debt relief on summary judgment your honour's as a matter of law under the facts of this case is a question of bet relief the finding that has to be declared was adjudicated by the indian family court in hyderabad the nov twenty fourth two thousand and nine order finds that the residence of the parties and of the minor physically is different from what the indian court adjudicated her residence to be and the illinois supreme court has told us that that finding is binding upon this court binding in so far as it is that even though she's here she was living and i hear about ordinarily resigning and i hear about yes because the supreme court said it further in that cases those findings are not subject to relate a geisha we cannot come back here court can simply disregard the findings of another court well that that's that defeats the whole purpose of the uniform act in the first place if we're only for it to not milly's was given sole custody by our court that's correct and if i can if you a what was going to happen after four years what was the plan there wasn't any plan that the they're going to try for four years or that that the plan was that she was going to repay we're going to relocate there for four years at the end of for years perhaps she would have stayed another four years well perhaps she would have come home actually how many months was money there before she returned to america three months two months well she of sensibly returned after the litigation was commenced in india when she was here right in interest here nick hogan and that's when she sends my e mail i want my child back in if what happens if the case what happens if this was the case but others of these if the two parties got into a disagreement in your three of mr arrangements and the child had been attending school in india for you how much stronger case no question about it i'm not sure i'm not sure it notice on her at least from my mom it would seem to me that the normal person looking at stake and trying this out or taking their kid or going to a foreign country with their child and trying to see if this works and then after two and a half months million is to go to a to it has empowered a courts of another state or in this case the courts of another country to assume jurisdiction over the case if one determination is made and that is if the parties are no longer presently residing in illinois that is thoughtfully considered the arguments presented by both sides always weigh the evidence for for your residential lease the residency permit obtained by the indian government as her place in the child and school there i there is there anything more telling about where you intend to remain where you intend to reside for the future in the present than enrolling your only child in school there is there anything more telling them that they hang a house  six month intervals and she has one for you but she is for four years wife because she intended to remain there for at least four years now we get we get in an argument because grandma takes my check the child to school and we say well the whole deal is off set said send the child home for where are you where you physically at the time that you are where you're physically actually was here that's why the next party work but your honor i reside in illinois if i go to california and somebody sues me while i'm in california that doesn't mean indian judge after consideration says you know what i'm here to act in this child's best interests i'm not going to let a squabble between mother in law earth the mother and grandma disrupt this child's education when honest when i when i say that that wasn't that her insistence to send the child home after making send the child back to united states after making a major life decision to make a major life change to move to the other side of the world when i say that was not in the child's best interest i'm not making an argument that isn't adjudicated conclusion of law reached by the indian judge she said i'm not i'm acting in the child's best interest to talk to the child and the case is currently in the indian supreme court and that's correct the indian union supreme finance we're not going to review you don't get to come back here and collaterally teka you have to go back and take that direct appeal now in those cases that wasn't done here it's being done but you don't get to do bowl you don't get to do what she's doing you don't get to the point i wanted to make and this is that this case from california that my opponent relies upon very heavily in there in his briefs and the circuit court judge most of the role basically so he relied on its case called nerd mary versus  great upon visit to visit her family in pakistan and decided to stay there against the father's wishes and didn't come back to california had got bad found for the first california assume home state jurisdiction because that was where the child was residing for case was decided the child was located it was back in california in school there and we go on to the california public court and the whole thing is that pakistan none of the pakistani orders and interest in late none of the pakistani orders were published by the requote in their a to determination of not not with where you live california would have that's what the process but that's not what happened but if the cat and the child was there i don't know the answer to that and i think but the fact that the it's where the parties and the child presently you know present you reside if they if they've left if if they're no longer presently residing in the illinois and that then that's that's the end of it and the other court determines that that's the end of it i'm not sure that it will if one of them runs back remaining in the initial decree state if you've taken up and left to go live somewhere else that's not enough to maintain exclusive continuing jurisdiction and it's certainly deep powers quotes of other states and  course of other countries from acting pursuant to the power that the legislature has given that it's who owes who a to if you know it no court could ever assume jurisdiction if there's some functioning residence or some lingering part of your in substantial compliance with the u c c j if i could just put the law there for one second and at least construct matter see he cites to the committee comments and then he underlined certain things within those comments but what he should have done was underlined the whole thing because it should be read in pari materia what he says the comment notes and focuses on when the trial the parents and all persons acting as parents physically leave the state to live it elsewhere the exclusive continuing jurisdiction ceases but when you read the whole the whole committee comment it says it is the intention of the sec the paragraph eight two of this section means that the named persons no longer continue to actually live in the state so it's not just that they've left it's that they no longer actually continue to live within the state up and let me talk to her actually this is all before you are on its way she and this is going to be another summer get promotions for the record exhibit b the permit you have the permit provides that she is a visitor  doesn't say that she's going to she's allowed four years but the permit itself says that she is a visitor mo to government form and she had to do it so it wasn't even like a trip she could ask for one week but but they're going somewhere else with this something intention y it prior to this to two thousand and nine which kind of meant my levy spent in india but let's do that she went there from time to time for vacations and that was it and not only that her parents were here her parents are here and she was worried about the security they were talking about and agreed order is twenty nine pages the length that we had prepared keeping jurisdiction here she trusted they probably shouldn't have she shouldn't have and by the way you know what then a driver if you take a look at the e mails which are clearly part of this record it doesn't mention the mother it says send the child home i have some security it doesn't say security concerns but i have concerns it's not working and how long did they spend in india i want to address that real quickly it wasn't even so it wasn't even a straight period in september they roll the trial when august and september they're back here for a week why he should leave the child in indianapolis because the child was in school but what could be clear is why she's here work you know this is a school by the way it's it's teachers in english and it's where people who have diplomats and others bring their child per year a semester and so we didn't know what was going to happen she was willing to try it on october seventh and by the way this is five days and you're right it's with the commencement of the action where a sheet she is definitely here in illinois there's no question about where is she  that she had a residence there even their best case jordan were eight now allows for multiple residences the issue is not whether or not she gets a residence there that's not the issue the issue it is if you give up her residence here litigation he was arguing and he said he'd now richard my mother bought me a house here i was litigating for four years to get my child back there's no question he was a resident of pakistan then but the issue in the killer for the court was not whether or not he had  specific and prayed there was not and therefore we're not going to make them classified if that's what he's asking you to do here because asking you to make an implicit finding that because of the indian order there's an implicit binding she wasn't residing here well what your position is on a standard things that will you find out what happened in the direct appeal which is something i would suggest make fun of since it just to me but also what are the positions in the in the supreme court is there a question and so i'd say you know without regard to whatever may happen in any way your honour's have this issue forswear before you mile in a z as you well know resides in illinois mollies you all know residing in illinois at the time as you know the case was on trial ed in this circuit court of the county when he goes and gets an expiry order what he need to expand your order for and by the way let's not lose sight of the fact that he himself and that we thirty justice murphy to the indian court head coach loads of way and wrote a most well reasoned decision should be affirmed that that in fact this mother by the way hey just was not outside this mother's company for more than a couple days his whole was and while we talk nicely and and try to maintain a certain dignity and decorum this is a kidnapping and this court should be brave enough to recognize it for what it is and discard should enter the appropriate order they are not insubstantial conformity other courts have done it california has done it time and  herself but when he wrote that much as an ex predicate other courtney as lawyers here on october thirteenth there was no emergency he could come in here but he couldn't fight here because he couldn't win here he's three times conceded the first order the second order the visitation order that she's a jurisdiction and so your honour's i think this is really a clear case and i think it does come down to you'll follow nori which i think is the well reasoned case or you won't and i would hope your honour's would find on the certify question that judge knows it was correct that jurisdiction and all the cases say that but when you want to enroll be in the in order here if you're hoping to have a proper order it needs that recites certain things and a certain inquiry needs to be undertaken it was not it was not thoughts on this issue is it up to us to require or must or should be attorneys give us the facts the the ultimate question here in the tourney should give the proper facts for the proper issue in india this was not an issue in other words the facts that were being presented in india was for indian jurisdiction not for later in rome and here he goes in for two for two pieces of partly an emergency injunction and an opi asking for change  oh indeed it's hot out here today outside but we're not in delhi and a lot of what miss justice let me just told you should be arguments to that should be made in the indian supreme court in delhi because those are a lot of his arguments focusing you know focusing on the e mails focusing on the type of the residency permit those are all arguments against the beat of against whether or not the order was correct whether or not the indian judge adjudicated things correctly it is not for us to say we do not sit in judgment of him our supreme court has said that and that is a bed is everybody effectively everything that you have just heard you don't get to do that there are no collateral attacks against orders entered by another state or another country d it was enacted to resolve the sort of disputes the council made to make makes the point about the nature of the hearing and whether or not testimony was taken whether or not it was under oath are statutes speaks to that this isn't in the at the end of that section it sets the clerk may examine the parties under oath as to the details of the information furnished and other matters put into the court's jurisdiction and disposition of the case made them in our own statute doesn't and this is not this is not a question of does she have a residence here it's where are you presently residing this this quotation from the church from the from the nursery case it is not the parties departure itself will kno just because you pick up and move somewhere that enough itself doesn't change anything that doesn't usurp the scene of the initial child custody jurisdiction what does is when and when a court makes a finding of residency and that's what we have here if they if they want to if they went and lived in india happily for four years eight years whatever and never went to court in india the money would have its excuse of continuing jurisdiction because the indian court never acted when she happen once the determination is made that is when the insubstantial conformity with the ak and orders entered under factual circumstances in can substantially conformity with yet the latter class of the reporters only was found in two places orders from native american trib some court said well we can't recognise that all because it's just some sort of policy statement at the end they need a purposeful decision to say that you want to fight these orders are going to be recognised and the faction that's that's why the court has to look to the factual circumstances because they're not he has to dedicate his professional life to empower empowering the poor of india he is not the kidnapper he has been taken to task in the press he has had he has been he has had allegations rendered against him from the u s state department all of which have been orchestrated by the other side and he doesn't deserve it and he doesn't deserve to be further characterize characterize the such in this court and i think the court recognizes that this was not a kidnapping this was not a snatching this was two people deciding to relocate to india got into a disagreement and my client went to court in the best interests of his of his child because after making a major life decision a major might like move he didn't want his son's education disrupted again this case based on not only the indian order where over nearly all of it is devoted to the injured occasion of these facts and these are the facts supporting its assertion of that she did live there because she intended to remain there for the future no i would employ this court to act quickly i would employ this court to act pursuant to supreme court rule three sixty six vacate the judgment entered march thirtieth enter judgment in my planes favor and declare that