and i'm proceeding for a say in the as the punt in this case i would like to have i guess the timing has been scheduled ready i'm not sure i believe i'm getting two minutes initially and  know there is only one question on appeal here before the court and it flows from the only basis given by the district court for dismissal of the habeas petition alone the question for review simply is whether the allegations in the petition are taken as true do they properly allege that i am in custody for federal habeas corpus purposes i mean i respect we proper that they do in this case the standards and precedent established by this court and by the supreme court as to being in custody or clearly met where a petition is physical liberties to freedom to freely come and go as he pleases within his community or restrained by the state child is throughout the day and the community is rather small as well as events that are common to the community there is no way that i can foresee and violation that doesn't count for the inadvertent possibilities of these happening i am preempted pretty much from going to events that are that are given by the municipality like christmas events by thanksgiving events and any number of events that are put on for the whole community i can't go to because of the very real possibility that my child would be there is there are three minutes before your time is up you want to use some of those three yes i wanted to finish this i would do ok ok clearly met where the petition is physical liberties are to free to come and go as he pleases or restrained by the state and where such restraints are not shared by the public generally and that certainly  case this case in this case of a tissue and an ambiguous lee alleges numerous ongoing constraints upon my physical abuse in my community as well as severely infringing upon my ability to freely work and enjoy peaceable recreation there simply constrained in my ability to conduct business maintain my reputation in the community and participate in local civic life as a lab rated in the appellate brief which needs this point is to be emphasize the merits of the petition are not on appeal have not been litigated entertained by the court below and i would oppose respondents continued efforts to litigate the merits here for the first time on appeal as they are neither right nor appropriate in this forum and should not be entertained  vs corpus purposes we recognize that mr christman wants relief arising from state custody proceedings but a federal habeas corpus court doesn't have the jurisdiction to grant that sort of relief and  cases the court this court set forth a two prong standard to determine to permit evaluation of the severity of the restraints on a person in determining whether one is in custody the first is the first question is whether the restraint requires a person to appear somewhere on a certain date at a certain time like a court appearance or to a reporting agency and the second is whether there are future adverse consequences the situation here does not rise to either level first of all the petitioner does not have to go to court with respect to this order of protection doesn't have to report anywhere you simply has to be where his daughter isn't to use the words that this court used in the vega decision and he can do so there may be logistic issues with that but his need to be where his daughter isn't does not rise to the level of needing to go to report to court to go someplace to be somewhere at a certain date or time and that is true  issues that the petitioner does have to deal with and does have to navigate those situations and certainly they're not easy ones but they don't rise to the level of having to be somewhere in the order doesn't force him or or require him to be someplace so it is need to avoid where his daughter is doesn't rise to the level of custody in that regard and further it the order of protection does not create a future adverse consequence as this court said invade the possibility of a future adverse consequence is not enough and here to violate the order the petitioner would have to act in an intentional way he here it is the situation here calls even more so for a finding of no custody the petitioner says that i have litigated the merits in my brief what i have mentioned is what the district court relied on as well a series of cases starting with lehmann vs lycoming county that talks about custody in the domestic relations arena and laymen and other district  courts such as gottlieb there are cited on page twenty six twenty seven my brief didn't go to the merits of the hey b s claims by the petitioning parents who are seeking relief arising from state custody proceedings what laymen and these other courts do is they consider the fact of the matter that the claim arises from a custody dispute a domestic relations dispute and that is something that's beyond a federal so that factor and in those cases the courts determine the custody issue and noted the domestic relations aspect but they determine custody and that's what's before this court in those courts the courts found that the parents who claim to be in custody as well as the parents who claim that their children were in custody because they were unsafe foster care or something like that those claims did not lie for a federal habeas relief thank you to entertain the merits of the hay vs corpus petition because the only grounds that was dismissed upon was this one particular brown respondents proposed principle of being of only being compelled to be somewhere at some time is that is what constitutes the in custody constraint is erroneous and i believe artificially limited in scope and other cited cases that show it being prohibited from places or in co constraints are also considered to be in custody the standard established is being subject to restraints not shared by the public generally as intent pen's lieberson in a civil court to come and go as as a person pleases and that would also include being barred from places by the state so i believe that would also come under the same heading of being in custody since one's ability to come and go  spawn pleases is being constrained also furthermore whether it was intentional or not i'm still subject to immediate arrest on somebodies whim if i am in the near proximity even if i'm unaware of being in proximity of my child i could be arrested just immediately and you know i could not may not be convicted if eventually it is proven that it was unintentional but i could absolutely be arrested just for because of the probable cause and there my child is there there's enough evidence to show that i can be arrested for that it's irrespective of a final decision on whether the intent can be proven such a risk of simply being arrested and even temporarily incarcerated for that constrains my very ability to go and come as i please