the seriousness of her offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). This court has recognized that a sick, young child who requires special care presents an extraordinary family circumstance that the court must consider in selecting its sentence — and a statement that the circumstance is the defendant’s fault is not adequate consideration. United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746, 756 (7th Cir.2008). Nonetheless, Pilon’s family hardship argument was not a major part of her sentencing strategy, and the district court gave consideration commensurate with the argument that was made. The district court demonstrated that it had read her letter and considered her family hardship, but thought that the circumstances did not outweigh the seriousness of her offense. Cf. Schroeder, 536 F.3d at 751 (<HOLDING>). Further, by Pilon’s own admission, her older
holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony holding that cooperation agreement defendant entered into with the government did not include defendants testifying at trial where there was no meeting of the minds as to that point holding that risk is measured at the point when the attorneys time was committed to the case holding that summarily blaming the family hardship on the defendant was insufficient consideration where the defendant made family hardship a focal point by providing medical documentation offering testimony about the familys hardship and making the circumstances a key point of argument at sentencing recognizing the same point