for matthew and gave him custody of the minor child we are your honour's that the lower court was wrong for several reasons first it was against the manifest made of the court found that the minor was abused pursuant to the domestic violence act in in trial there are pictures of the fruit the mega label matched to the bruise on the picture of trial and one of the other bruises which were on her leg was caused by isabella dancing on the couch and she marijuana during her pregnancy the fact that how much child support to call this proceeding that was that has nothing to do with in fact whether she physically abused this child another thing was which had a killing of a fact on the judge which then helped him in my opinion decide that there was physical abuse intentional physical abuse and because of that decision should be reversed and the final reason why the decision should be reversed is because matthew misuses domestic violence act in an attempt to obtain custody of this child in his petition border protection he states that picked up his about why he took her home and fed her she ate and then change her saw the bruises call to this mother who was in the house mother came up and said oh take them to take her to the hospital instead of taking to the hospital they go eat down in the house to eat some around the house and then four hours after obtaining custody of the child that he takes her to the h that happened to her and they ate and then he went to the police i thought he was a doctor and the discharge instructions indicated that matthew was to contact the police department he didn't do that he misuse of domestic violence act in an attempt to gain custody that's exactly what  course was this decision by the trial court against the manifest weight of the evidence and if you're single you know i don't think there's any legal dispute between counsel in this case over whether or not that's the standard so you have to look at the record and see what judg concluded that the abuse happened when they were in myspace and care and that abuse had occurred so much that they involve state authorities that's how the police department and the c f s got involved also made a reference to the just making this comment at the end of his findings that he should not let some evidence i was trial counsel this falklands was not so i can tell you the context of that was after two days of fury the the child over a friend had violent tendencies and i think the trial court determined appropriately that if somebody has a series of convictions and arrests for violent tendencies in their repeatedly around the child and in the child's care of their potential person who the fact remains that happened eighteen months earlier and how does that relate to getting a domestic violence order of protection it doesn't directly it's relevant background the court may use why on the session of the police guilty of the witnesses and the credibility of the parties it still comes back and that's in the record the trial court judge said the pivotal thing to him what is the expert of fort worth will the testimony of four expert argument all the other things that miss hawkins argue should have been excluded by the court you still come back to a substantial body of evidence which is actually her before she would be the testimony of four directly involved experts who've been looted there well i guess the concept of the trial court was the concern that we try to take these events out of context to begin with if you define client nor the core knew exactly what happened when we were trying this at the  trying to determine credibility and i understand your point but what the point was trying to get sitter credibility here or look deeper to try to determine what the nature of the parties or what how they had acted over the course of the show you sad life that whether or not postponements in the trial court while the state acted under the juvenile petition against her based on the same facts and gave her an opportunity to work through those proceedings it was not until after the case was dismissed approximately in late november know how much evidence will be enough you try to stick to the initial facts within the order of protection and certainly i try to make proceedings as brief as i can whether it be for those for  series of steps to try to resolve what their main concerns were i think she had to fix some classes so forth and that ultimately they decided not to proceed further in the juvenile case and leave it to the order of protection i think it was mr mason go this unsupervised visitation every other week and i think there are some holiday visitation that that but that's been worked out and i think if i recall correctly justice turner that's the  clearly stated that he thought there were enough people looking at the situation on all sides of the family that a short term visitation over a weekend for probably roughly forty eight hours would not put the daughter back in a situation where mr mason could presumably make misjudgments about who's going to take care of her or for that if that was the potential for abuse that at least there would be a quick turnaround back to the father or someone else for felt that it wasn't