well here from march versus ross edward marx in this case before i begin my points of argument with the court like a brief recitation of the facts of this matter work thank you your honors as to my first point which is that the district court era when holding the hague convention was in effect was not in effect excuse me in effect on the day of the wrongful removal or attention of the subject children in this case because the convention entered into force in the united states on january first hundred eighty eight and in thailand on november first two thousand and two which was well before the wrongful removal and retention in this case the court incorrectly held that the convention became affective as between the united states and thailand on april first two thousand and sixteen resulting in it's a romania's holding that thailand was therefore not a contracting state the state department offers a liberal interpretation of the term entered into force and so it is with there might be another but isn't the position the state department is taking department seems to adopt so while we acknowledge that the state department has applied a strict interpretation by terry actually asserts that the state department guidance also offers a liberal interpretation that states and courts are also permitted to apply in this case where appropriate and in this case it's our position that it is appropriate that if the court were to haul that april first two thousand and sixteen was the trigger in honor i would i would go back to the text so when we're looking at statutes and conventions and treaties the interpretation of such begins with its text if we look at article thirty five of the  the contrary because if you look at article thirty five which is also supported by the first provision in article thirty eight article thirty nine as well as article forty three it says very well that the convention applies once the convention has been entered into force in those states and not as between those two states so if you look at article thirty eight it does say that the convention shall enter into force for a state ceding to it on the first day of third calendar month after the deposit of its interim of ascension article thirty nine further supports our position and says that any state may at any time of signature ratification acceptance approval or a session declare that the convention shall extend to all territories for an international relations of which it is responsible or to one or more of them such declaration shall t effect at the time the convention enters into force for that state so that particular state not in reference to others should move on to the other jury on or our second argument is that even if the convention was entered into force on april first twenty sixteen as the district court ruled it erred in holding that the retention was a singular act so the wrong retention began as we both agree on october seventh two thousand and fifteen which was the date that ms ha cows are sent an email to my client and unilaterally decided that she was remaining in new york despite the fact that she had returned tickets to thailand with the children and despite the fact that she duped my client and again i think one could be reviewed either way but aren't we should we give weight to the fact that austri forth a perk luzhin for a state to do as such and that applying a liberal interpretation in cases where appropriate is also an alternative method and where asking of the court of a practical problem with your client's position on that is innocence or no time limit that if deemed to be continued so with respect to the time limit we would suggest that for the article twelve well settled defense to be triggered that would occur on the date that mr hauck hauser wrote the email and the date that my client in accordance with case law should have no thank you your honor should have known that she was no longer returning however if it was not in a fact until april first twenty sixteen then the retention is an ongoing event because she still retaining the children in new york despite the fact that my client has joint legal custody and access every weekend my client hasn't seen his children but for twenty one days since they left and that was because he came here to visit them and he has his whole life there the children only knew asia they were born in hong kong they then moved to thailand my client has you know not seen as children despite the fact that he has custodial rights and in this matter that's why the continuous liberal interpretation of the continuous retention is appropriate in this matter  e many verses very tory which is the southern district case that although not binding on this court the petitioner had rights of custody when the retention of the children in the united states began and noted that the respondent was retaining continuously the children in the united states in violation of the petitioners custody rights under italian law and so in that case they got to the merits of that case and the court did hear affirmative defenses from the respondent in that law from around the united states the pariahs there are reports that retention is a singular act not an ongoing act judge caris and i would concur applied principles of statutory construction to assert that retention can only be interpreted as a single act the fourth circuit in the case of white versus white was very illustrated of on this point that if retention were an ongoing act then a person who did not have custody rights at the time of the retention could then seek to attain custody rights at some point in the future and as your honor rightly pointed out even five years in the future if a person attain custody rights they could then go back to the country and assert that there was a wrong for attention at that point retention literally could mean just continuing i mean is there some and in guidance and  a convention on this issue on how we should interpret retention well i think article three which also goes to the issue of custody rights and access rights but custody rights article three points out that of the convention points out that custody rights need to be determined at the point immediately before retention and i think that illustrates that retention should be  retention were a singular rock rather than a continuous one couldn't one argue that retention occurred at that doesn't matter in this case but just at that point which you gave us as a horrible a singular act now and then one years later and i understand your honest point and i would respond in two different ways first this was this decision was based on a motion to dismiss and unless it is a continuous act the root tension occurred before april sixteenth and that that's fine but your argument against continuous was based on a horrible that applies just as much to single last so why shouldn't we reading retention is continuous read it as which is a possible reading reviewed that way except for of a fact that other countries have bought the article language in article three i think is clear where it's as though over tension is to be considered wrongful where and then it gives examples of when it's considered wrongful but the use of the word the retention i think denotes the fact that it can only occur what's not on a continuous basis not multiple times and only once and it's at that moment we did the courts it's a term and whether it's wrongful or rightful or illegal or not  retail act of retention occurs one moment in time it's when courts have said the other parent should have known the child was not going to be returned the parent cannot know multiple times that the child is not going to be returned the child knows once and for all the child is not going to be returned and that's when we measure whether retention was wrongful or or not your honor i would move on to article thirty five and thirty eight and it's clear that when we are interpret in treaties you can look at the language of course and you should start with the language but if there's some ambiguity which i think in this case there is it's clear that there's a lot of ambiguity you can look at the intent the  drafting history the negotiation history in the post ratification understanding of signatory nations in this case it's clear that the british courts have defined the treaty to apply retentions to apply after the two countries have both ratified the convention and is and signed off between each other as well the state department in this case agrees with the pritish court's interpretation hundred sixty two years before the united states senate ratified the convention gave their interpretation of the treaty and in their interpretation they stated that the treaty applies as between two countries  judge caris in his decision also noted that if you want on the state department's website you further explanation that it only applies when the treaty is in effect between the two countries now article thirty eight goes into how the contract and states excepted accept the treaty and in this case even appellant acknowledges that that occurred on april first two thousand and sixteen  paragraph two of the petition clearly states that the treaty went into effect between the united states and thailand on april first two thousand and sixteen now again the facts of the petition are the basis of this motion to dismiss  as your honor also pointed out the case this circuit in the case of sircar versus fair also acknowledged that the removal of the retention must occur after the convention is in fact between the two countries in that case the removal occurred three weeks after the treaty was in effect between the united states and singapore and it noted that in footnote five lastly i want to go to an issue that judge caris felt that he did not need to comment on but that's one of custody and access rights and it was brought up in appellant's brief as i noted in article three custody rights need to be determined immediately before the date of her attention in this case  acknowledges that retention occurred on october seventh two thousand and fifteen he appellant also acknowledges in his petition that appellee had sole custody as of october seventh two thousand and fifteen so the fact remains that immediately before the alleged retention appellant acknowledges that he had no custody rights therefore he has no basis to bring forward this petition that is the third and honor just a couple of points in response the bully seeks to apply a different standard of the word for attention than it is traditionally defined the act of retaining something very well means the possession and the possession of something or someone and so to apply a different standard or different definition as is commonly used seeks you know it's a in contravention of statutory interpretation with respect to the fact that the article thirty eight is unambiguous and the fact that entry into force must take place when two countries a seed to one another the convention is clear the article thirty five is clear that it's when the countries have the convention entered into force in the individual countries and not as between my adversary brings up the case and i would in addition to his point i boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court and i submit to the court that is precisely what miss ha ha cows are dead in this case the convention was adopted for a specific and unequivocal purpose and that was to ensure that the left behind parent mr marks is able to exercise his or her rights so that one parent could not alienate the other from their children in an attempt to erase them from their lives and the convention seeks to serve the rights of my client and in this matter if this case remains dismissed and has not gone to an evidentiary hearing that is precisely what will happen the district court erred in determining that the convention was not in effect and it also erred when it held that continuous that the retention is not continuous as to the access rights which is not before this court and i did not appeal that because the district court did not reach that issue however i will just briefly address that my client never ever gave up his parental rights under the law which is that gives him the ability to determine where the children reside and in that in that country and as well he had access rights every week and so the fact that he had access rights and he never gave up his current all rights which under the convention permits him to disarm and where the children reside is in contravent