decision that inconsistent or unsupported by the facts not withstanding whether the indicator report falls but in that use no neglected child pouring act which we submit it doesn't at the department of children family services inconsistent with the record and its own factual findings with its own rules and regulations and with the established case law in this district and why isn't what excessive aren't reasonable inconsistent decisions mother their words at the state of ohio their adult brother also moved in with her it's uncontested she moved to a larger apartment if the children more room a nicer place to live involve them in school a special education after school programs was doing the fourteen year old that's the subject of the indicated finding bats at issue here has a history of lying to officials as well the history of self mutilation and these are troubled children but because of the past that they pose no fault of their own found themselves then and the record the ministry of decision also states an older brother who testified the ministry of hearing was found to be a credible witness said that the thirteen year old said she'd rather live in foster care than with mr shock where there's too much structure and ultimately a conflict arose between the children as she attempted to set boundaries for their behavior the incident in question here was her use of corporal punishment she set boundaries because the child would not go to the afterschool program and refused to it wasn't for reasons that were not founded it was because she was trying to have structure in their life are we allowed to consider her towards the younger and in their own decision they said those two factors were not present in her case so there is going to those indications that were ultimately expunged it also goes into the overall i'm significance of what was going on in the home and so based on that the only thing that would be a lot would be the excess of her punishment and that cannot stand either because it's inconsistent with both the facts in this case and the infliction of corporal punishment on the unger brother would not be something that we could consider in determining the validity of that i would say no because that part of this decision there's testimony that she she disciplined her when she found out about her not going to some class twice everything and for not going to or after school program right and so she discipline right back to the record it does show i'm looking at the transcript of the administrative decision that she that day that it happened she did what he said yes taken but the next unlawful but i'm just telling you what she said she said she was going to do it after she was and by then she goes and does it because the trial didn't go right she didn't want the child roaming the that the environment that they're in her entire country it said her conduct during the entire time with the children although not particularly talking about number eleven the indication at issue here that there was no danger and there's no other questions i would just reserve  the access to that would be controlled so that that would play a part in the event of any attempt to adopt or what how about what what what what judge and attached and i'm not in asking that question undervalue with the subject of i know i have limited access to the central register but i'm not sure what the consequences then would be child sustained three bruises yourself over different parts of her body she had a bruise to her arm actually i think that all of these bruises it's clear that these bruises all came from the paneling were was there true that was all part of the struggle while she was striking the child so the she ends some of the bruises were of the bruise on the arm and that by were the size of a fifty cent piece bluish in color and she used a two inch wooden paddle to strike the child and she did so both when the child and she did this because the child had left an after school program and she did this because both when the child back home from school and then between the the charge of excessive corporal punishment from the fact that of this was not a parent and child it was a mismatch situation it was not a  situation where ever downplayed the parenting skills were either of the ones that were required to cope with the situation but that has to be separated from the charge of excessive corporal punishment doesn't it because if there would have been more cooperation with the children with the children moreover report this same i'm duck might have been j greater and there was more of a relationship between the mother and the child it was the fact that indications of a loving relationship was very positive relationship there here the relationship was not that at all but there's reason to think that these children were all ready in some difficulty in dealing with parental authority or otherwise even before the relationship demands are so that the attempts to cope with it were futile and stand out more but does that to what extent should that influence whether that same  had been very calm and that the child was unaffected and remained happy actual rights in this case in addition to the circumstances of the striking with a two inch wooden paddle and then  that the use of an instrument is distinct and different from you know using an open handed wife and children and that the use you know of an instrument does raise concerns and here you have circumstance give deference to administrative agencies have respect started out today but that can't be given deference when it's an inconsistent station but its own findings with the rules and regulations of its own department and the case law i think  did get to the heart of the matter that no matter how one views proper punishment it's nothing that is unlawful and there is you need to look at the facts surrounding it and there really isn't a case like this one is there i don't i don't see that either the  of the things that was looked at but again going back to the factors to be considered in these indications and whether or not that constitutes abuse there is no substantial about the faces that talk about what you term and where the corporal punishment was excessive those factors are whether in history or whether the punishment was imposed or no reason whether the punishment was excessive the light of the circumstances and any medical or expert testimony was present those are the pictures we're looking at truly not whether she you know she was indicated on the other charges i but that's just going to the overall definition of abuse in the environment that was what i would say are the factors that we is reviewing court look at in determining whether the corporal punishment was excessive that's the issue in front of us now whether the other other charges are properly expunged or whether or not the harm that was imposed you know did was these other things i mean that's what you're sort of arguing but that's really not what we look at history or who we are i think that there's by the factors that would be considered here and looking at the factors when it goes to the heart of excessive corporal punishment this was an isolated incident this was not saying every heard over and over and over this is not just to punish a child for no reason it was trying to set boundaries for a child consistent decisions can't stand and that's what this would be well we have stated that the hearing officer clearly made a mistake that's what we have to say ecstasy and they really erroneous that