and the second is the court's use of the statute for child support in effect before july one thousand and seventeen when they issued its opinion and its ruling after that point time first of all with regard to the issue of parenting time in this case the court determined that in you know again this is probably one of the first cases that the second area that the court looked at was parenting time and there are some problems to me in a couple of years the way the court broached it throughout the course memorandum as in one time i think the court even referred to it  elephant in the room was the fact that rock daniel suffered a brain injury in two thousand and twelve five years prior to the time we tried this case and i think the bad brain injury and subsequent disability that he has unit dating came across in such a facia in that the court does not look at all of the evidence to determine if there's a bridge between some limitations he has and his ability to parent specifically parenting time is referred to as the time that a parent exercises caretaker functions and i went through my brief and i know myself all of those caretaking functions and the evidence is hung contradicted that rock performs all of those during the time of separation that one or complains that he didn't perform each and every one of those  so when the court makes its statements about why it is not giving rock time with his child as requested i think we have to examine that and i would ask the courts to look at pages ten eleven assignments except for the next thing that you relies on as he says the schedule proposed by ra the court has a significant level of concern that if a fifty fifty schedule is ordered due to the effects of his injury rock may not be able to provide the level of consistent support r w needs to succeed in school those were the concerns expressed as to why he said you can't have what you are so i don't think the best interests of this child to set up this type of schedule i think that is a very as i said in my reply brief a slippery slope where do we cut off because a person has a disability because whatever's happened to them in life evidence shows there is no such bridge he has the ability to parent there is no adverse effect upon r w d from his parenting during this time period there's no evidence that he didn't do his homework there's no evidence that he was unable to perform any of the parenting functions the tutor that are so forth mister and the fact it what i'm saying to the court as i had laid out in my in my briefs is that everything he did he taught this child he did force with the child he thought into the book he took him to archery he taught him how to work outside on fences he taught him how to clean he taught in manners he took him to church he did all the parenting functions there is no evidence whatsoever as rock william having any difficulty from his fans parenting so the question becomes mentioned as being a prevalent thought of the court at the very beginning and throughout his memorandum especially down on page eleven where we are talking about under paragraph c your honor in that language and where he starts again the elephant in the room is rocks t v i many of the functions hated forms because of rock's limitations this factor balances heavily in kate's favor but at the time the court was making this decision he didn't have those limitations that prevented him from taking care of ra the situation changed at the start of the dissolution as it usually does kate got a full time job versus a part time job it was obvious in family set up in the in the family's allocation i guess of actions toward the child prior to the time that she took a full time job and she was part time she would perform more of those functions we're not arguing that one of the things that the court i think lightly looked at was the fact in the testimony defrocked would work with this child with his homework on a daily basis prior to the separation this was witnessed not only but by his mother sherry who happens to be a teacher of elementary and it was witnessed afterwards that rock still did since he still perform those functions so the question is this schedule going to be something that would be disruptive to the stability of the child now when you look at the schedule that rock proposed he proposed initially that he would have a fifty fifty schedule the court said first of all under illinois law i don't think that that's possible unless these people and cooperate effectively were to do it were fact so in our motion for reconsideration we said if the court doesn't believe under illinois law it's appropriate do that then allow him to have his sunday nights overnight and his tuesday night so that's in our motion to reconsider and when the court addressed that it came back in it said the evidence is that these parties do not have a good relationship or the ability to consistently communicate in a civil manner that's just not supported by the evidence kate went out and decided that or kate decided that she would  night so she called up and she says you want to have him overnight and he did they didn't have any fights or arguments and one of the things that i was i pointed out in my  sunday nights this child can sail the night on the night you can say there is not communication between the parties on the child's picked up and dropped off at school the child do there's no communication coming tuesday night or sunday night or anything like that so there is no communication on and on the major issues portis already said to suit people and cooperate on that communication so one doesn't necessarily jive with the other i think that the court is speculating when it says there's one of the problems there is no evidence of a problem and i don't believe that it's appropriate for the court to speculate because if there's evidence of a problem and we had we had there's a lot of his parents is and his sister is uncle and in fact his former employer he's a very functioning person and the question is is this he prevents or does he take any actions this point to instill instability with this child when he would have and i would submit that the evidence is not there for that one wash my time if they do want to get to the second  thousand and seventeen in africa or do you believe that the old case was properly decided i have some i believe that the cold case when it becomes is the case completed or not is this a retroactive application of the statute and i believe that this is not a retroactive application of a statute if the court had applied statute that became fact of july one and i'll give you a couple of examples if you're in a trial a jury trial if the last witnesses call and the evidence is close they still have the presentation of arguments to the jury before the trials finish if i so much if we write briefs in this before this court and don't complete the arguments you feel similarly in this case we tried the case the evidence was closed two days before july one that's the facts but the court directed i want written arguments the argument phase of the trial pending the cole case is much different it was finished arguments close presented to the court and the court took two months to rule on it it's a different scenario we're in a situation to we were in the middle of the completion of the trial to say that the argument phase is not part of the trial or that you'd be iffy it only applies to cases that are tried after july one thousand and seventeen as is  hate that does that's not true the statute doesn't say that and i think best is that it is not following the statute and not following the law at the time that the court ruled the evidence that was presented  framework in place at the time it's just in terms of the the the the timeline here evidence was presented prior to the effective date of the legislation so guidelines because the argument takes into account the guidelines in effect at the time of the rule and the law is in effect at that time and the court is order or is under the  duty to apply the law when it rules on a case now there isn't a there's no statement in this statute that says oh it was tried before then i of the previous law and it's just like the example i gave in my provider if you tried the the child support aspect of the dissolution but then you tried the property aspect of the  solution in july and then close your proof would bethen say to do should we have to apply those guidelines at the time that we heard evidence as to factual evidence on support i don't think so who legislation was very clear it became effective july one two thousand and seventeen it didn't say pending cases are heard under the previous or ruled on the previous  position as to what i think is more correct i think the cole decision went on a proc on a statement that it would be retroactive because the whole case was closed i would have taken the position and i still think the better position to take is that whatever statute is in effect at the time of the court making this ruling should be applied and child support is different than maintenance as i pointed out a situation i don't know there's a ninety day rule in the statute but say that the judge takes ninety days or takes six months is that then going to apply the previous law at that point i don't think  you do that i think the better law is on this state this is what we have if i if i was ruling on call i would say that they took the wrong approach but that's my of think my opinion is that case you can't make that argument because the case was completed and even if you did i think the better approach is to say what's in effect on the day of the ruling is what there is no presumption in favor of a fifty there is no law out there that says you should start from fifty fifty in the place you start your consideration and that if you're going to do anything other than a fifty this judge wasn't very thoughtful it's considerations and it's not a case where the court said oh you can only have restricted time with your child you can only see your child on a supervised this is a case where judge davis granted this dad very substantial amounts of time with his child he receives every other weekend i'm from thursday until sunday he has thursday in the off week in the off week he also has tuesday evening so this is not a case where we have restrictions on parenting time that he's not allowed to see his  child mr scott is right that the court did the court the court looked at all these different factors and when you go through the court's analysis the try to track courts analysis of all the different factors on parenting he went through each one in measure leaving the last two years she has taken on the lion's share caring for that child and really that and the court weaponize this the one of the reasons he was able to parent so affective is that she made it easy for him to do that she did what courts life mom's to do and that is to facilitate relationships and despite the fact that he would hang up on her  weekly that he would accuse her of yelling at him when she never raised her voice a variety of things that made it very difficult for her to communicate with him and quite frankly the the trial court judge and the reason that's an abus discretion standard and so forth is that the truck court judge judge's davis had the ability to sit and watch both walk and kate over the course of not just two days there's also temporary relief and so over a long period of time that to watch how they spoke how they addressed things the manner in which they responded and was able to see that and the testimony that came in about you know the bags that  would have to make sure that the checks were written in envelope before this child went to gad's to make sure the vitamins were there in the allergy medications were there when proxies i want him to play hockey i play hockey and ok and she made back happing that's what she did and with respect to rock's disability the judge that to see the manner in which he communicated and so forth and i don't think i think this this court judge took pains on the disability issue to be very fair in that regard and how it analyzed it but it also was the one who could see how how rock was able to track or not track there was testimony rocks dad where where rocket where he indicated that rock had a period of time from several years before his traumatic brain injury in two thousand and twelve to over here after his traumatic brain injury where he had no memory  how does that apply to this child applies to this child because the parent based on the child that we know and literally half of this child's life time was lost to him now i think that mom was basically  really help silicate in terms of him parenting and i think this is a mom who realized that this this child's going to have a better life if dad is involved in it so i i i do believe that the court  consider what was best for this child you know this is a mom who had had chosen the school this is a mom who was very involved with but the child's education then didn't know the child's the teacher the teacher's horrible that their abilities to communicate ok and then when he said i want them to jointly parent he said that's how you could argue that that's an inconsistency i see it more as him saying to my client i want you to continue to communicate with him i want you to continue to work with him and and sending that message he also say throughout the other part of this case that was an appeal the decision making in each and every factor but religion  he indicated that my client would be the decision making if there is a final decision to be made she's going to be the decision maker so i would suggest that subs though he would certainly be giving encouraging language which i think truck courts often do he i suggest to you that like what i have to say to you today in argument is nothing but based on the facts and the evidence that came in prior to today  with respect to that and this came out and in questions of mr scott in terms of how this case was presented this case was presented from a child support  standpoint based on the law that existed at the time of trial there are a number of things that have to be done now under the new law that are quite different by way of the example you count of one hundred forty six days and because  different now no child support we have to go back and revisit that you know so that was already done with regard to closely he i put in on the motion to reconsider what it was basically i want you on the the side of perspective application not retroactively application and over and over and over again including the statute on statutes is you look at you you err on the side of perspective application you don't err on the side of health insurance cost with parents health insurance but duck that out you can deduct out mandatory retirement contributions which were done in this case under the new law that's all gone and then there's the specific provision in the new law that says how you allocate out health insurance costs between the parents so yes there are fundamental changes to the law fundamental changes to the law that went into effect on july one and that were not part of on how you look at this and that and the whole case with respect to maintenance which is under the same domestic act basically the illinois marriage and dissolution marriage act as this child support one and the court clearly said hey with respect to just going back quickly on this parenting thing one of the issues that was brought up was the case that mr scott cited regarding it it was a disabled parent who actually ended up getting custody of the child and i just wanted to point out that in that case that s and the mom in that case who had some disabilities she had been the primary caring parent there was no question but that she had been the primary caring parent and in this case there was no question based  on the judge's analysis in this case that kate had always been the primary parent so i think you know you can you can talk about disability on that one but really i mean i think she the reason that she received custody of that child because she had always been the primary parent and the person who had primarily been in charge and that is something that that tape head has always done and with respect to wrong doing certain things like homework and so forth i think the evidence that was presented to the court overwhelmingly showed that it was kate who had it all of that up and then really d help facilitate dad being involved by the way in which she handled things in the way in which she apparently did in and attempted to work with and interact with to interact with with  dad i'd be so happy to answer any other questions that you have if there are any you would like me to address a third any issue you want me to get to and i thank you very much statute and i laid out in my argument a written argument that was submitted by july thirteenth i think is when we submitted them that you know the new statute and how the court was allocated based on what it did with the number of overnights and that and that's depended upon i disagree with counsel as to if there'd been any type of difference in presentation of financial information to the court he spoke of these people work in salaried positions there is not a you know like you have a businessman is out there trying to determine net income or whether someone's will not have that income easily determined by salary positions there was evidence as  e the amount of health insurance that was that was paid let me see if i understood correctly your response you argued the new child support provision both for the hearing  i believe that i referenced the fact that we would be having the statute change as of july was and i apologize i don't remember exactly but i believe it was raised there but it was raised in my argument it was the only argument i put forth regret i'm sorry so is dad said yeah he had this period where he couldn't remember but he also said i've watched him and he is totally without limitations as far as meeting the needs of