here on behalf of appellant the mother of two young children whose habitual residence is at issue in this case of with the court's permission i would like to reserve just one minute for rebuttal you really think you may please the court the district courts should be reversed three reasons first the parties here never abandon the united states as the habitual residence of the children the record does not support a conclusion otherwise and the district court could not have and did not find otherwise second and notwithstanding abend issue the objective facts in this record simply do not demonstrate that the children's lives here had become so firmly embedded in singapore that taking them out of there would be tantamount to taking them out of the family and social environment in which their lives had developed it had not and third if the district court's order here is upheld the result will be contrary to the underlying policy and the purpose behind the hague convention the real decision here is not whether it be in these children's best interest to spend the next year with their father but their mother and particularly where the real decision is which courts single corps or the united states which family courts get to rule in the interests of these children  the courts in the us where these children were born where the couple met and married where they're citizens where they hold jobs property and have extended family and financial ties or the courts in singapore the connections to which are attenuated and are limited to the father's temporary employment there there are no other connections to singapore there's no family no friends and there are no ties other than this brief point here is indeed in open court before the district court the father actually expressed his willingness to participate in family proceedings in massachusetts  evaluate the abandonment prong of the analysis but the district court found that the father's employment in singapore was time for three years through june of two thousand and fifty and we have no problem with that because that is the fact that the it's not the findings are incomplete but we believe that the findings of the district court warrant a different conclusion that there were no additional facts that the district court needed to find and there is no need for an additional record to but what but but abandonment is a legal ruling and it would but the subsidiary facts that would be required for that ruling were before the district court in the district court articulated of many of those facts in its order and we have an issue with is the result of those findings so so in particular the district court ruled that the parties had agreed that the singapore situation would be for three years in the three years were not up yet i mean your argument in essence residence was the united states the parties met here married here stablished a life here and in till they travel to singapore in june of two thousand and twelve for the three year assignment there is just no question that the united states is the place for this family undisputed fact they're both residential condominiums one of which the parties lived in right until the moment they travelled to singapore the other they actually purchased about two weeks before leaving to singapore intended to live in one of the document but the district court did make a finding of fact that the father's employment was for three years there is one written document that it's not a document from the father's employer but it's a letter that the mother with father's knowledge sent to her employer in may in march excuse me of two thousand and thirteen before there was a dispute here within the family and that's a fourteen and fifteen of are pending and that letter states to the boston public schools for motherhood work  for many years upon you my father my husband's employer temporarily relocated our family to singapore upon completion of the three years i intend to resume my job with and our return to the states i intend to resume my job with the boston public schools that document which the father actually attached to his petition is one of the most clear pieces of objective evidence in this case it's not he said she said it's a letter made efforts great efforts to paint permanent residency residency status in the united states he obtained a green card and absolutely independent of this dispute in february of this year returned to the united states immigration attorney and took steps to ensure that the us that us would not be affected by his temporary time in singapore there are no immigration or residency ties to singapore the family isn't disputed me they're on what's called an employment pass it's a temporary pass issued by the singapore government where a particular person can work there and his or her dependents can live with him there but nothing else this record never had a shirt settled and tend to abandon the prior place of additional residence but notwithstanding that we don't think that the facts on this record demonstrate a climate as ation you know all that we have here with respect to singapore's one child three three years old briefly attending what's called an edge you play class with the mother it's a parent accompany playtime activity class the entire time in singapore the children for a job and a mother guess i know what happened was he actually has a singapore based employer in other words the entity that pays him is added a new c e o private limited software which is a single poor incorporated drafted so what her affidavit says is in early two thousand and thirteen the marriage had broken down and she commuted that communicated that to friends and family and then obtained a consulate with an attorney in early two thousand and thirteen then the evidence shows that on march of two thousand and thirteen and the reason why i think that date is important is because if you look at the record attached to her affidavit appendix one ninety two and one ninety three the letter from boston public schools is dated november nineteenth two thousand and twelve boston public schools which she admits is is one of the reasons why they were returning to the united states asked her to respond by december fifteenth two thousand and twelve or no later than january fifteenth two thousand and thirteen and she doesn't do that in fact there is silence until march sixteenth of two thousand and thirteen when she sends a letter that says that the family has relocated to singapore and she uses the word relocate and then she says at the end of his encounters sign it there's no evidence on the record that he read it reviewed it or approved it he was aware of it that is that is true but then that's what's equally important is the e mail correspondence that then comes within three short months after that in june where she says i agreed to move to singapore because life abroad is different and i quote this is appendix one ninety nine i want to move back to the u s and in that same e mail chain which disputes the claim that they intended to move back to the us she says we considered living abroad after the three year period was up among other places london in copenhagen so this is the same statement and by the way in her affidavit she says i have never lived abroad massachusetts residence they kept their residential property in massachusetts a rented it yeah they rent they rented one year leases on both parcels all right they kept their bank accounts she kept her job up excuse me she kept her job her job in leave of absence out as her husband kept his green card a life are and i'm struggling with the notion of correct is there any evidence that he asked to be relocated and he evidence that she asked him to arrange to be relocated so he didn't don't know tina johnson single for his employer i believe if you if you want if you state that you intended to reside in a place you represent to the court that that is your address and then you file a federal and a massachusetts tax return that say something different i think that at a minimum we have to look at that year leases and leasing housing in single poor is equally consistent with your theory of the case in your opponent's theory of the case it's exactly what someone would do if they were going to relocate temporarily for three years with the intention of returning also what someone might do if they were going to relocate permanently although you might think they would the property up for  record but she signs under the pains and penalties of perjury saying that she left massachusetts but it is not her residence as of may thirty in two thousand and twelve and indicates that her address is fifty coronation road  shipping that over to a new country and discussing and that is again part of the route record that you may live continue to live abroad including london in copenhagen securing investigating schools and pre school says i never intended to have the children go to preschool but there's an e mail that she sent to the father saying thanks for the information i've investigated preschools i'm looking to enroll our children in preschools renting a home moving all of your talks about the phenomenon of the academic year abroad and how that particular phenomenon we'd be really stifled if parents were had to be so concerned that sending a child would result in a legal effect that in effect could they could lose their child i just want to briefly submit to the court that i believe that this is not all that different  honor and you know working abroad but improvement in one's career is something that parents should be able to agree to without fearing that they would not be able to come back from that country with their children and unless the court has any other