manifest weight of the evidence which was induced into hearing it clearly erroneous and should be reversed because and else is an allegation of abuse rests on specific facts of each individual case i'll briefly summarize the facts i think we pretty much know the original administrative hearing we submitted that the inquiry does not and whether the department has proven by preponderance of the evidence that there was a restriction on the mobility of the child and the benefit decision that it was in a reasonable restriction but that any allegation of harm cluing allegation fourteen also requires an analysis of whether abuse as defined in the act has occurred and i would submit to this court position in the education department issue in this case is fourteen time or close confinement allegation fourteen is an allegation of abuse abuse is defined in the abuse and neglect of child reporting act and we believe that the department to meet  burden had a whole nother need to prove that there was a violation of allegation fourteen but not that there was abuse and an abused child is one whose parents inflict or create injury or substantial risk of injury impairment physical or emotional health or loss or impairment of bodily function they are there is a likeliness or a likelihood standard and that was not by any stretch of the imagination met in this case with anybody those examples it is well settled are not per se by the way since they determine must prove that the conduct of past amounts to an unreasonable restriction based on the totality of the circumstances of the particular case here the restriction was not unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances a child who's recently been adopted who has been suffering a series of violent episodes who is by the appellants testimony involved in the most serious episode unreasonable was clearly erroneous and for those reasons we asked the court reversed thank you look you are two different two different ways that this can be met the allegations that come in when a report is made of suspected abuse  so i think that yes it yes there was this fellow was emotionally distraught and that's why shoes restrained in the first place because she was there and you know harming yourself on safety transport ministry was restrained that was think it would be anybody's reaction to that trying to escape from being so implicitly immobilized in on able to take care of yourself friends or yourself that really understand what's going on here how it doesn't ri genesis of this is i'm going to take the other children to their lessons you need to come in the van and she does not and she won't get in the van one you know now here it's what she's going to if you leave your child like this on supervis that the children really objected to this in some kind of strong way as here where you have a child fighting to escape this you know there's an escalation that goes on here because this goes downhill for a period of decision that then became the director's decision is based on in the conclusion based on the facts in applying the law and i don't think there's any reason to believe that the director does that they don't know you would seem to this bed things are being taken care of but i don't know how long just a duration of that have to be it's you know if that would be the same with physical injury or any kind of are for and that's why the services are provided because there's going to be only other way of different situations and emergencies that come off and suki have you know you're you're trained your first responders type of people who know how to deal with  consideration but is i was suggesting earlier now there is a new there's a new dynamic here and simply because there hasn't been a problem before one of the problems then ar once you believe that the what's it seems that the evidence has shown us that this is an unreasonable restriction what do you what do you do with that because you have to create the point is to protect the children you know makes these decisions on it on a day to day basis and if you don't make the decision what happens if you i mean if you don't make the finding or you know what happens if you if you're wron conclusions in her brief of what that abuse is that being emotional abuse are not supported anywhere in the record there was no evidence offered introduced in any way shape or form to suggest that there was emotional abuse the only thing that could perhaps be stretched to suggest that there was evidence of emotional harm was the testimony that the child was crying upon arrival at the hospital the child was involved in no horribly violent outburst for the duration even if this were not the right decision it wasn't in a reasonable decision given the totality of the circumstances finally councils distinction walk the walk addressed a large enclosure where is is binding to a chair i don't believe in any way makes a case last analogous to this case walk did not involve two foster children who were in fault in a violent outburst and a threat to themselves it was the confining of those children because of certain of their past behaviors so that the foster parents could attend to certain chores that home to the factual circumstances are just inked in that way but