that comes to mind and as i continue to read and reread the courts of the trial court's ruling it becomes more apparent that that ruling was unreasonable in this case and it's unreasonable because what the trial court's decision means for this e exercised most of this parenting time he went to games of the child but yet he went to some of the practices couple doctors appointments never really stayed home with the child when he was sick  to a couple school activities this is again this is a good parent this is now where you hear an exceptional parent and if the child has a good relationship with extended family again based on the court's ruling doesn't have to be great they don't have to be overly involved in this case it was testified to that the children or the child solve the extended family of mr boston just on weekends when he saw the child when he had the child for parenting time occasionally went t grandparents day or a concert or a game but that was only a few times a year so nothing special about that relationship there a third thing if the travels much beyond fifty miles the fifty mile radius for relocation but the crowd court's ruling is saying you know that's going to be that's going to require too much travel it can be too much travel in the poor that the child participates in extracurricular activities whatsoever if these four things are present no no parent no custodial parent will ever get to remove the child oh i'm sorry relocate the child it doesn't matter how legitimate the reason for relocating or how great of a parent because how and where in this case i find it was very compelling reasons for wanting to move it began with the husband having an offer of a position in iowa where he would be making substantially more money and not just that it was the guarantee of income he was running a business he had a salary of about thirty seven and was running a business the income was not guaranteed he had this opportunity not just for himself before his family also the hours he was go for going from eighty hours  forty hours he was out in the field when he was in illinois where there he was in a more of a management management position and then it kind of snowballed into at the time a trial he had already moved so my client's desire then turned to not just wanting to be there with her husband because i know of the fourth district has discussed that just wanting to be with a spouse isn't enough but there was a lot more here the my client and her spouse had a child together a very young child a four month old at the time of the trial her wanting to be there wanted to she wanted to have her child for her husband's child and her husband to have this relationship have a close relationship have an intact family for the child for her not to stay in illinois and have to be a single parent when she's married and not just a single parent to have the child at issue tray but the child with her husband and not just the child with her husband and discuss they want to have more children together this makes their marriage so very complicated because one mother wants to have more from the standpoint of the failing to engage in the appropriate analysis i think that in other words you agree that the trial court focused on the correct statutory factors here considered each of the factors but they decided what criticism you might have of the trial court and not identifying the weight yet attached to each of those factors is that yes i believe that she considered all the factors and obviously if you go  the trial court is discussing the factors and makes in appropriate considerations i'm with regard to those factors specific lee i know the seventh factor when it court went through how great of a parent my client was and how if she was deciding decision making responsibility parenting time my client was in yet she goes on this day to discount that somehow by saying well yeah but i've been there was testimony that he could be a good father if we gave him the opportunity i don't necessarily think that is an appropriate consideration or something that she should consider when the fact or save the history of each parents relationship with a child that seems to be retrospective as opposed to prospect of retrospectively my client did that did everything for this child she was involved in every facet of this child's life and to say that just because mr boston can do it in the future that somehow weighs against my client in terms of that factor so i'm not entirely sure if she took that into consideration  or when she was deciding if that fact or wait for my client or against her that is more what i was saying and where i was going with that argument previously  time that includes similar things you look at in a relocation case you look at the interaction in a relationship of the child with not just the parents but extended family as well and bac an issue because one of the determining factors but that the court stated was that she relied on was a good relationship with extended family and also when looking at decision makers sponsibility and parenting time you also look at the  in relocation cases they talk about in the with the seven factor whether the trial court is able to fashion a reasonable allocation of parental responsibilities between all parents that when they discuss that factor very putting the needs of the child about your own time and that's how we think so i think that was i think that was a very telling in her argument and made it kind of confusing and as to why the relocation was not allowed and district has ruled in the past this specifically with regard to the fourth case they stated that extended relationship with extended family is a ballot consideration however when weighed against other factors shouldn't prevent removal expression when the child would not be disadvantaged just disadvantage or harm as to make that a determinant factor she's making this a determinative factor without showing what the court case technically says you need to show is that the child's to somehow be disadvantaged or harmed by changing this relationship and i think it's important to note also that we're talking about a four hour drive it's not good and in both parties proposals yes it was the true the travel when they would meet and curio which isn't necessarily splitting it happens my clients are actually driving a substantial amount of the way and curious to auburn's about an hour and twenty minutes  over that and i think it's interesting because both of their proposals mr boston's if my client was allowed to relocate with the child and my client's proposal if she were allowed to relocate are almost mirror images of one another where the child would be traveling three weekends a month to visit with mr boston that's not too much of a difference from what's going on what was going on before the relocation petition where he was seeing on the weekends about four weekends a month us sometimes i understand there's five but mostly four weekends a month so you're just cutting down one weekend a month however the time with extra monday he was at work and the child was at daycare so were i think the the relocation would allow for a more meaningful time and not necessarily more time i think it's probably works out about  but i think more meaningful time between the two and then i also find issue with the court when the court analyzed factor seven being able to fashion a reasonable allocation of parental responsibility if she had an issue with the travel travel child traveling three times a month however as i just mentioned both of both parties proposals are mirror images travelling three times a month three weekends a month so it seems odd that the tribal court has issues with the truck child traveling this much however the parents who know this child the best say we don't really find that to be an issue and in fact my plan to testify that she's taken the trip with him before he he does and also with the  want to change that and he had stated that it was the inability to attend all of trey's extracurricular activities that was one of the reason here the objective and the decreasing quality time with the tray and they tried to make this argument about he's receiving so much less time because there is this travel on the weekends however as measured in my brief it's not really that much different of time he'd be travelling an hour and twenty minutes with the child in the car the child would be home a couple hours after he would have got him originally before the review before the relocation and on and sundays he was losing about twenty minutes so wasn't much of a change there and he's he and he tried to argue and i i know both of his witnesses all use the same or they all said quality time to change the quality time but the fourth district has repeatedly said that the time that you have together isn't as important as what as what you do with that and so i think cutting it down to a couple hours a week to make that much of a difference and i think the trial court kind of jumped on that quality of time and i think she i think that was an inappropriate with regard to factor for educational opportunities for the child at the existing location and have a proposed new location in the trial court's ruling she talks about how the with the proposed move there are a lot of a lot of more high school based and that he'll do well anywhere he goes and that she chose farmersville in the past for convenience and he doesn't have special needs so it doesn't matter where he goes and i think these are a lot of inappropriate considerations that she looked at here and i think and i guess my overall issue with all of this is i think mr boston testified first and i think he came off as a really nice guy and i think she felt bad for him and i think she had decided at that point she was ruling for mr boston and i think she went through these factors and tried to find a way to get there that's a pretty bold authority that the court is to follow and if you look at the authority from the fourth district everything she says in this opinion is the opposite of what the fourth district has said and and what i find it to you also have to find that it's the opinion was unreasonable and his as i have started in the beginning i think what this case does makes  i'm sorry what the ruling does is make future cases are relocation impossible because there is nothing i don't hear anything compelling on mr boston side and the four things i had to say that she really stuck on to a good parent a good relationship with extended family travel and participation ash curricular activities those are for things common i would say seemingly comm opinion is it makes every future relocation impossible council we live in a mobile society there's no question so why shouldn't as i can be able to read and write that's the reason we're here if mr boston were  occasional parent or one that had not been involved in every step of this child's life it would be easier to rubber stamp their requests to relocate but that's not the case here despite miss king's assertions mr boston has been involved in every step of this child's life trial court noted that even this i can supplant this i can testify to that fact the parties function together tremendously they never even had an order they never went to court he was involved and they worked their schedule largely around his i can't residence but she moved a little further away and he couldn't exercise mid week visitation he went to every weekend not every other weekend which is mostly what this court sees he went to every weekend he went every weekend to maintain his significant involvement in this child's life he saw the child friday saturday and sunday he never went more than four days without seeing this child he participated in all of these activities and did miss i am taking the child to the doctor more where she did she had him more during the week and my client works a full time job what's not being said is the fact that she set her own hours has consistently said her own work hours and still consider her own work hours of course she took the child to the doctor more that doesn't say that my client didn't testimony of my client and it was conceded he did take the child to the doctor if he heard himself on his weekend or if you needed to of course you saw that child's care but the fact that she so much more of the regular appointments is a red herring she had the child more during the week same with homework my clients are the child's homework when he had homework to do on his time he didn't always have homework to do in his time because she had more on the weekdays that's just the way that the schedule worked out but to say that he was only a good parent because he only saw him on the weekends is completely ignoring the facts here you've seen the pictures if you review the records he has pictures with his extended family of every activity they've done is they've got love and the involvement is apparent in those pictures he was involved in every activity and to the extent that she was in baltimore perhaps with school at the doctor's he was involved more with the activities all of wrestling which is this boy's face every sport has him all the meets all the way  yesterday so unfortunately what happens frequently is each party is trying to show the other person to be worse or not as good as or something that i have a mean i believe that the presence of family extended family i believe the history of involvement in my client and the fact that he exercised not all of this time plus additional time in the summer and saw the child all of the time i believe that the ability to arrange another schedule was very important and if i may on bapak point a very significant point in this case which is not present in most of the other cases that i read that i can't think of any is the here and i realize that the justice is there that they're after what happened after that isn't part of what's before the court today but if she stays if the child stays here and the the mother moves to iowa she has the ability to drive midweek any time she wants and see the child still go to doctor's appointments still go to school functions that are in the evenings she has family to stay with that's on the record she can she has housing available to her here no problem if she stays here she has the ability to visit with her husband the middle of the week because she sets her own schedule my client doesn't have that ability he can't go to anything or in the evenings at night he just can't i mean he has to miss work or he can't it's four hour drive he can't his family can't attend functions and i o the way they can hear the family involvement everybody on both sides of the families are in town as one of the witnesses said just one phone call away they don't have that everybody's here this boy loves his family sees his family may see a more on the weekends but that doesn't mean it's exclusively weekends although witnesses testified grandmothers especially where there is a system of transportation were there to assist him if they needed a babysitter you know that will be available and i'm so that i leave that the family was one important factor and the ability to fashion a alternative by miss i think in doing more of the driving she's flexible i think that factored into the court's vote edwards ruling i also believe it was a history of moment and i believe that minimizes the level of parenting that my client has given this time i mean he's been integrally involved in his life he's not just been weakened that so i would also like to focus on the the standard of review going to happen so she ruled from the bench she excused herself after the testimony and came back and i also believe i think she has noticed that you know we should read from it but she issued the decision she followed every step of six zero nine point two and mother there's no question but she put herself to serve agree in the situation when she chose when they chose to accept a job and get a house before they even raise the issue in the court with my client so they've she just assumed she was going to get to do it it's an untenable it's not a good situation for her but it wouldn't be the situation for my client but the focus isn't whether it's a good situation for the parents to hope this is a good situation for the child and that's what the judge said her responsibility to review the only case that court denied the removal and the second district upheld that denial finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and also was talking about the difference between the quality of time versus the quantity of time and how alternate weekends and compressed time in the summer doesn't always replace the continuing contact if you so to a very very good to be doing i did not judge it came down after it came down in october it was released in october its two thousand seventeen elapsed second one seven zero three five and in that case just like this case i think there is a there is a need to look at the economic circumstances and the reason for the rebuttal now there is no standard that says that it has to be absolutely required but i think all of the cases  cited the situation was the mother was a waitress she had to work at nights with her child had to be farmed out to other people every night she had such bad financial situation she had lived with her parents and the child and never own their own room in that case it's an economic necessity there's other cases i believe it's the matching case where the mother exhausted all efforts to find employment there because she lost her job she found a job elsewhere she had this isn't that situation  necessity they didn't have to move and the fact that they get a bigger house they get a better community in their mind doesn't replace the fact that this child they're wanting to take this child out of his sense of community his family everything he knows here it won't be able to spend as much time with  his little brother who is described as being inseparable with it just that it's it's not she didn't have to do this be nice for her yes but in that case that second district also talked about the fact that the focus and this is an second district analyze that to mean the legislature shifting the focus slightly off that and focusing more just on the best interest in the in impact of the life of the child it's an interesting analysis because they're right they didn't bring that forward from egret into six on one point t so there's no question that this i can believe that her life would be enhanced if we were there was a move but that doesn't mean the child's life is going to be enhanced just because he has a bigger house so then they finally the concurrence in that  regard the factors are still under six zero nine point two the factors in the case they have to be considered by the trial judge and they were considered by the trial judge she is an experienced judge she went through every one of those factors she does not have to assign weight to them she she mentioned them all and in fact the first one where this i can argue that she gave improper weight she didn't assign weight she doesn't have to assign weight she considered them all and for this  to find that it was against america when the evidence is just not correct it dilutes the whole standard of review it takes away her job she's the one that got to observe the witnesses she's the one who heard the testimony she said well who saw the tears in the courtroom she issued her and i think we we show that economic security my clients husband had a job where he had significant accounts receivable he didn't know when the money was coming and when it was going out yet he they want to move to iowa to have financial security in that he has a guaranteed income he has a salary he makes one hundred twenty thousand a year you know that each month or each we whatever the pay ackerman's may be that there in my argument because i didn't see much that went on with this child that didn't involve that we and they tried to say that father was more involved with the activities of the  wrestling and the baseball in the soccer these need in these games occurred on weekends that's why he took them but the testimony suggested my client was there every step of the way however things that happen during the week the heart of the things that are as important to people the practices that was my client my client there for the things that aren't as glamorous as the games and so forth she is there for every step of the way in then in terms of the homework and the homework done he testified he did homework maybe one time has said is that not it's from her bring it upon herself that that isn't necessarily a good argument that's not it that's not appropriate to consider because then everyone who comes into the court went into real ok they put themselves in the situation they have to deal with and i don't think so your honour's mr boston has begun a new life with his new wife her son and their daughter together my client wishes to do the same and to achieve this obviously she has to relocate and the trial court if a case like that if a parent can't relocate in a case like this the trial court's stand has made it impossible for any parent to relocate in the future and that's what i think makes an unreasonable that's what i think what make that way what makes it manifest injustice and what i think makes it