people they know right or write and i will tell you all think that we have read your brief so we're familiar with the background of the case of the microphone that's in front maybe she didn't have a legal obligation to say anything but wouldn't any reasonable person in her circumstance tell the trial judge by the way the reasonable person who was petrified her husband would tell the judge i've never been in that position is that reasonable i was probably petrified of the citizen isn't the trial judge hearing the criminal contempt proceeding entitle to dr time without the defendants testifying when the trial judge in the criminal contempt proceedings heard then on september eighteenth the day before her husband was arrested she was in court before the divorce j said nothing about the arrest warrant that she called the police they update about them no the next morning her husband is going to show up at her house to pick up their son and more when the whole they do show up to execute the warrant can't they have trial judge day are entitled to draw up inferences from admissible evidence the admissible evidence was she was in accordance of temper eighteen she said nothing about the arrest warrant for her husband or the pending criminal charges for that matter she called the police on the eighteenth time let them know he would be at her house the next morning to pick up their son ok it isn't the trial judge entitle to draw inferences from that evidence which is who would like to have their spouse arrested for something during a divorce proceeding i can get the problem i think we're all having here is that when parties are involved and the safe different children and she's in front of the divorce judge who's deciding the visitation schedule and bed for me she has an opportunity to say judge there is a problem here i feel threatened i feel i feel that my children are threatened please help me it was the church that was the year in the divorce case seeing the visitation order that started this case correct the net have all the information that he needed from her have a hearing on saturday saturday night sunday sunday night monday monday finally on tuesday after three days and three hundred forty three nights at twenty six in arrested and the circumstances and the only as very sad defendant's conduct as impeded embarrassed obstructing the court's effect of administration of was based on the incident that happened in the previous march that she'd already tried to get an order of protection if they sent there from the same set up it wasn't something new incident that happened between the decide in the indirect criminal contempt proceedings he had to decide in calling officer sanish and telling him that her husband would be the heir the following day to pick up their son was she intending to f of errors here ron now on our side in the computer system i don't know how the computer system picked up your old interests but it did the other problem was that your failure to respond to the calls from the court what i'm sure was preparation you had engaged in up to before the argument i'm sure twelfth but we have resolved the matter and we have your briefs we have your excellent arguments today we thank you for the at and will take the matter under advice