quo has taken into account that the participate here i mean agreements for jade were to go to the united states to leave his patrol residence under money and stay in the united states for a specific limited period of time and that was one of limited duration that nonetheless carries a degree of stadol prevents that is that you're actually putting down roots you're living a full life during that limited period that necessarily that's accompan nonetheless we said that because this your intent was that the we temporarily moved for two years but during those two years that the mother and child would be fully living their lives in canada but th at canada within that short two month period because of the sheer detention the parents had become habitual residence notwithstanding the idea that there was going to be this altering coming from the us to canada for two years in bac us your honor i think the court placed specific emphasis in writing on the circumstances of the case where the child was an infant we were dealing with an eighteen year old child there was an agreement to go to canada for a two year period and then  court recognized in car kane and in most situations where there is a specific share content for the parties for the child to go to new location for a specific limited period of time there's not going to be a change an  and that change will only occur in unique circumstances that i can writing or like in car canyon where the parents have a shared intent for the child to make that decision on her own after the summer does not cut the other way i e if you're talking about a child  infant so you can actually take account of the child's own development of relationships the child's own preferences so in writing we were really left to really look to the shared intent of the from one parent with trial to move for two year period and and to truly settle into rife the normal course of the normal course of life for that two year period that the abduction by the father after two months with an abduction from what was properly deemed the habitual residence in in this case where we have a child who is of sufficient age in with surety to actually  relationships to develop a normal routine a sense of environmental normalcy as we've suggested in writing don't we had even more reason to consider the place that parents intended to move his stay in the united states was going to be first but difficult limited period of time and recognize that too he stated that with this record judge that he was aware that he was told he would only be in the united states for a limited period of time but that his mother now wanted him to stay for another year and i think that it was a clear air on the part of the district court to conclude that there was no specific intent to stay for a certain period of time because the record shows that both of the parties signed an agreement with j school in germany which can be found at j eight ninety seven requesting a one year leap of babson's from school and declared in that document the general will return to j f k for the academic year two thousand and sixteen two thousand and seventeen and then this is cooperated by the fact that in there in no exchanges later mrs brock question repeatedly acknowledged the agreement and asked for a reconsideration of the agreement she states chuck i think you misunderstand me i'm not breaking the agreeing that i'm suggesting to reconsider and then in the subsequent email chuck you're not hearing me again i'm not breaking the agreement reconsidered and then again chuck i think you should think about reconsideration of the agreement and one more time here chuck you have all my sympathy but please prepare yourself to reconsider the internet the district court found that there was no shared intent say in the united states for a specific limited period of time because the e mail exchanges did not  residences what we have here is a family that in the stablish life in germany mother made a decision that she needed to return to pittsburgh to finish her degree and father gave women a consent for the return which a day before that period of time and after one academic year return to the united the children between the countries on a regular basis there was no preexisting agreement here to stay but j p will go to germany for a period of time in the united states purpura the time they were in germany no definite plans to change that and then from the record doesn't this record say in black and white that this was an agreement that in effect continued the alternating residence is that he had had in pittsburgh and then  germany and then back to pittsburgh and then as the father had said explicitly back to germany for when year and then back to pittsburgh for the following year why isn't this a paradigm of  will residence is i think that when we look at those alternating have actual presidents as in the shuttle custody cases those were situations in which the agreement from the beginning was to do this back and forth and i think we can look back in time here and say that g b spent over the past five years in equal amount of time in each of those countries but that the returning to the united states a later time was needed to go back to pittsburgh at that time and again the emails in the mother's testimony don't reflect that and she she to asked if i had to return even going back to germany for two years that was with the understanding of returning after that back to work and the district need credibility finding and found the mother's testimony more credible how would how could we second guess that as  to the nature of the expectations they had in terms of her return to the united states i think it's important to look at the shared intents and that's the standard here we have mother giving certain testimony post  understanding of the agreement and what it may have been but i submit that that it comes nowhere close to outweighing previous feared evidence in the record that the parties intended for in their one year leave of absence document  january in your one the period says i don't want to be two years i want to be one year i'd like to have a child back in december that we think january one there was a wrongful retention first of all i would your honor with respect to that being the standard i think if we look at car kane and yang and look at the district court here and how it based its analysis they have used the standard of clearly communicated but i want to address your hypothetical was well let's say there was an agreement for a two year stay and then the rep behind parent decides after a short a time period now i want the child back and making my demands that would still be the retention date when that lot behind the parent makes that demand but that doesn't ultimately return we look to the actual date that there was a purchase that the airline ticket had been quickest and that is that the flight was scheduled on that day the child couldn't get on the flight we treated that as about in cocaine and looks at the bait is clearly communicated but even if it's june nineteenth i don't think that alters the analysis or position or of what the district court incorrectly determined the retention rate and that it relied on irrelevant evidence because of that determination and i think by the court opposing counsel there is a custody action in allegheny county there's a full custody trial scheduled for july but sure today trial both parties are appearing pro se so that is scheduled for the summer father about the summer camps and summer activities of a child in advance and he acquiesced she paid for them and he acquiesced and the child was in swimming camp what she'd been all year continuation of activity began in the there i'm just trying to say back to when i was eight and i didn't move when i was eight for three months and after three months i didn't want to go back but then after i moved back i was ok after one month so it seems that year for an eight year old's probably significantly more to be pretty clear that she's saying there was an intent at one point to return him to germany in fact the intent still existed at that time but she wanted her husband to reconsider that yes there was an agreement but you're not taking  interests into account this needs to be looked at again and that's the theme and if that's the intent then how how do i get around that especially if we're not sure at  with him to go to pittsburgh for the twenty fifteen to sixteen year as his mother testified that she was not sure which and now with her ph d hopefully would be a year but it might be longer there was a possibility of a post doctorate position by one that she might be able to obtain and she felt this would be a way to cover all the bases but if she would be able to come back that would be available to her son something i want to point out when you consider his time when he was be a pretty well adjusted child but regardless where he is generally he seems to adapt pretty well certainly with respect to the us forces opposed to american sports things like that for him to return to germany some point in the summer of twenty sixteen whether it be june or july or august how old how do you get around that helpful when she came to the united states a first time a child came with parents ocean sentient functioning single parent with a child that was like two three years old i mean she has always always always been when they were in ireland before that she was and not taking his his things for his benefit into consideration but there appears to a bit of agreement that she doesn't belong now i don't know that i agree with g that the child's perspective and we have here on the record multiple e mails from the father from the mother talking about changing community caregivers every for didn't see it that way i thought those cases were about very young children they're all under the age of four each of the three that you cited and that the child desires and can't work experience those were been within the country thank you residence determination as to international international custody once that decision is need and that bat is then binding correct i'm not sure by judge kozinski where a family had a life in israel father gave a limited consent for the mother to take the children to los angeles for thirteen months after one year mother filed for divorce and refused to return the kids  in that case the ninth circuit reversed the decision of the district court refusing to return the children because it quite expression emphasis on the fact that the parties had ensured intent for the children would be their only intent for the child to stay in ok sion for a specific period of time and he says that in those cases it mostly time there's not going to be a change in bush or residence with respect to operating a bitch or residences i know that they are discussed in the