i would like to reserve you but you don't have to use it all i understand that your honor and i'll try to do the best i can but i'd like to be very very many of you ladies are just i just watch the clock in this circuit we have a a down work counting clock  abroad the state department is our central authority for getting children back from foreign countries under this cheney and the national center for missing and exploited children act acts for the state department and in the united states in in this case the the family had moved from california you know so i think we're pretty well acquainted with the facts perhaps you might want to go straight to the issue of whether or not judge morrow's findings were clearly erroneous with respect to the parents having to settle intention to adopt three iran or the it's of course difficult to meet the standard are clearly erroneous but it children alimony child support occupancy of the family home as she called it and she had every possibility at that time to claim that represent some witnesses to say it didn't it actually did present some quickness says that she had told that she was going just on a trial basis and the court believed that you know i mean both of them your client they've gone along with what is the i had the idea that this was a conditional move but it's still not clear what the condition was in those witnesses did not testify what the condition was even the bullet sort of reads a little bit like a t and then we have the then we have the entrance of i do you know good war and the the wife not wanting to have the mistress living in the house and but the children had previously lived in the united states how long but there were certain credibility findings that the court had to make going to that process and the court could have actually made them against the appellate and said that no i think based on all of this you you did intend you know you were intending to move there you were intending to stay there and then your position went sideways when that the slate of budhwar situation came up and that and if the court had said well no you intended to move there permanently it was to move in all of that and i'm going to find for your client they would be in the same position that you're and i would still we'd still have to wrestle with all these credibility findings well there's one thing that doesn't require any credibility findings as i see it you're out here and that is the the lawsuit which  is filed and grace on the sixteenth of march this was after the so called ends and it was long after the question of whether she had a came with a condition or not and she filed and she made an open ended  claim for our custody thousands of court alimony the family home occupancy and everything she did mention nothing about any condition this was long before we went to trial later we went the trial before judge morrow but this was long before we went to trial that she had filed suit in greece for custody and for fraud for quite a lot of money in fact and she had not mentioned anything about a condition not mention anything about a right to go back to the united states m not mention anything about wanting to go back to the united states to counsel wouldn't that be one in dispute which needs to be taken into account with with others such as the fact the children went to school in an english speaking school not agree with the school a number of moves as to callahan mention these are all elements to be taken into account i take it in terms of the big picture or you arguing that the  and she knows that the father has some rights to the town or he says she wants to make sure that you know that she doesn't you know cause some sort of international you know the eat they need you in florida that and you know the of course this will find you and take your children so she says well i want to make sure i can take my kids with me and so i'm going to try to do that i mean that's another way to look at it if the court looked at it that way then it isn't necessarily dispositive in your favor well i'm not sure that i first of all as to the intent at the time when they left and she found and i think she made some rather curious if francis at that point she found however that the mother had in her mind at least  inconsistent statement in court which she later made in the federal court and in the united states of i'm always saying that this court dealing with this case they know them as you do is far as the legal  her california residents have been there she didn't ask to go back and she could have asked the great court to go back if she didn't do it yes your honor but when i hear you argue it's something that we're all accustomed to for a person and immediately become a resident of wherever they're situated if they intend to remain there indefinitely and that is almost an instant instantaneous achievement of residency now this we're concerned with a victual resident a bit resident and we're talking about the child the child has to be and have a chill resident freaks right now obviously we're concerned with the habitual part of that and what does that mean in the context of this child's development and assimilation into culture and all of those things that we sometimes get concerned with and we're faced with with all of this discussion about the intense in the conduct of the parents and then these children are are placed are placed in greece for a very short time in a culture that's strange to them and if we focused on they have bitch will a resident of the child isn't that what this whole scheme is intended to achieve by not disrupting these children through strange cultures and so on and that the significance of a victual as it relates to resident has something if it came from the standpoint of the child now is that off the chart or not certainly not off the chart here but but these children were not completely taken to a strange otherworldly environment in greece they had visited there a number of times over the years and so it's not that they had no roots there those children when they first got back in december of two thousand and three they went to or a to the wives of their family home there and then they went this is the this is they had roots there in other words and there it was not just a strange place stronger and they had the warmth of family in that place gets you're down to three and a half minutes you can make a request for protection and make additional requests for support has to be in visitation so the main effort is for the request in that state court was  for protection of herself and the children after the domestic violence incident had occurred i dish and what's important to know is that my client mother had returned to the country to handle things here in the united  that has been left pending an open one which left the court in the district court to rely on the fact that it was a conditional basis move when she returned that is when she learned from the line it should child with it and she's not going anywhere at that time she realized she couldn't go anywhere she didn't have possession of her or the children's passports and she was not going to be leaving them as your honor has noted she was not going to be to find an attorney had no transportation to and from and at that point made a request for a restraining order along with requests for the support of her children so she could maintain them one other important thing is if these children had close ties or cultural roots to this country then it would be logical that father who met who wanted to start up all of business as he contended in the lower court that he would have gone straight once the domestic violence incident had occurred and once the restraining order had been granted and he had gotten an attorney who dismissed it once he had succeeded he now it's intended to even move furthermore  the clued her and move her approximately two to three hours away and already which is where his family was and these children have seen this family on an occasional basis growing up that they had lived and grown up here in the united states cleaning that the children were wrongfully removed and the council raised that and they have to his client for the first time in this court and the court began would not have made any findings on that issue mister you have some reserved time the the matter of the sliced wrist was tried before a judge tomorrow we had to have my car an expert witness the surgeon  actual residence right and you presented that on the stand mean to show that this is proper cosmos was not credible because she made this other thing up so therefore she would be credible on the other issues right i'm also  conditional move that the mother never really wanted to go to mexico and good that she came back and therefore she had the right to bring the children back there are limits on what you can consider to be the the she would go back to the united states are you correct me now from wrong refine my my understanding is that in her action filed it in greek she never alleged that she was a resident am i right that there is no no allegation of fact that she claimed to be a resident i don't believe that she claimed to be a resident she did ask for i understand it i understand that relieves yes the place where they were living to be given to her as the family home about but a little different from what we would see in the typical petition for divorce here are personal letters resident secret the purpose of your thick we don't have that and as i i don't know the reason for that it was drawn up by a great lawyer i do know that in the many of the european countries that they look to nationality to our personal status rather than