i guess the issue being that the order itself doesn't it has a self authenticating feature the life of a judge is issued his or her indicated that for these two parties this is the schedule of the judge the judge child and that's the problem for the typical want to force an officer in the field there's no guidance for a there's no case that says he can't do this he shouldn't do this not that i'm aware of certainly not to testify that their policy is not to do then you put that if someone were able to show that the officer was acting conspiratorially in terms so that it wasn't really that you know that then he wasn't saying i acted in good faith he was just trying to like help out a friend or something and effect you know custody in the way that the friend wanted it that be a different situation where an officer would know if there is evidence of that would that go outside of qualified immunity because that's a little different kind of officer going out to say ok you're looking at it saying ok i think you should have the child right now and so child go over here with this parent and that sort of thing but let's say there evidence that he's a friend of one of the parties and a party said you know i'm just having so much trouble with my x you know can you help me out getting this straightened out does that make a difference here what's the evidence here that's ok that's  the child indicated in deposition that the officer called his father by the first name that his father seemed comfortable around him and he's typically not comfortable around police officer after the fact supposedly either the father or his father sister made a comment we've got that's the other was there any evidence that the sister in the officer knew each other  conspiracy claim to go forward he also said early knew that they were going to oceanside for their vacation there was another thing the magistrate judge mentioned earlier that's true and the officer had a conversation with the father and the sister outside the home before he contacted the mother they told him during the conversation what was going to happen so it seems to me that there is no evidence  sheriff's department provides contract services for that location a number of cities in san bernardino county contract with the sheriff's department for ok did she get on the phone and called the police but she gets the higher police department not the sheriff's office is that right now no watch commander that she spoke to issue is not whether it's unreasonable for police officers who look at a court order and when forsooth the issue is whether it is reasonable for a police officer who has been in similar particular occasion that he's going to deny my client the appellee that opportunity and act as well if he had always if he had always done it before you know he always looked at it and said ok child go here child go there are you saying then you have no case no what i'm saying is a first he never said that child go here child go there he says it is not for me to decide what instructions are placed on a custody visitation order and i felt i couldn't and i'm kind of getting at you know i'm trying to just get a whole a hold on what the actual evidence is not the way you'd like me to see it or the way that appellant would like me to see it you know what was the evidence before the judge and i didn't read the officer's statement about the five times he dealt with has to be as how your argument and the officer statement was clear that in the prior occasions when there has been protest and contradictions between the parents passed to the interpretation of the custody order he has not got into playing judge an arbitrator and interpretating that custody order and making a determination as appeared the day before ok let me let me turn your attention to something it seems to me has been left out and whether or not whatever gets the facts i was struck frankly i read the brief of the unless you can come within one nine hundred eighty three and the magistrate judge was obviously wrong now we have two sisters circuits who specifically say that this is not so much to due process it doesn't raise some to that issue that that it's not shocking to the conscience the case is a great cost to this case in your responding brief you didn't even bother to cite the cases or respond to them nor have you yet it struck me that if these cases are correct that we should reverse automatically on the basis that there's no substitute due process claim there may be a claim in state court for some violation i don't dispute that the question is whether you're in the correct court under  three so what do you do about the eighth circuit in the tenth circuit cases we have a law that says unless there's some reason to the contrary that we should do it we never create conflicts with other circuits so we're almost you're the recommendations of the magistrate but a thorough analysis of those cases clearly show that those cases number one probably rightly construed agreed that in the context of a parent child relationship there is a talking about custody cases where the government comes in and sees the children because both parents are alleged to be incompetent to take care of a child that's an entirely different area of the law what we're dealing with now his the court to the actual language of the order that we're dealing with here the actual language of the order and i would reference just by way of example and i can have a copy of the court like look at it i've got it in front of me and i've visitation on mutually agreed upon terms there convenient for each other in the event that they are unable to do so the following shall schedule will apply mother shall have quote unquote custody of matthew for  the following times and it goes on now that is significant to the lower court because the court as you actually know from your thorough analysis of the court's interpretation of the system cases found that for purposes of determining whether there was a substantive due process violation this order was in fact a custody order for purposes of the finding the client the parties rights as to when my client sick and grabbing the child and saying the parents are incapable of taking him away which is the case is the nature straight judge relied upon but i've also read you've read i'm sure the tenth circuit and the eight circuit cases with your agenda call to the case we have here they deal with with the with the with with visitation rights as a matter of fact there are stronger cases because in this case the husband had legal custody so he had a greater liberty interest then the mother did so we have that situation and they say there is no substitute due process issue here that is they're saying you shouldn't be here in one thousand nine hundred three you should be taking your case to the state court in both those cases the courts said that under the facts of the case as presented to them they decided that in the context of the visitation orders those with patient orders did not under those facts give rise to substantive due process point and also critical in both cases the court found that's the sister court cases that the giving up of the child was there was no consensual aspect in this case in order at the very beginning start talks about physical and legal custody to the father simply kind of ignores the very fact and part of the order of that with respect to the actual  implementation of that when it comes to my client's rights she does have  rise to a federal constitutional level mccourt was under say section one thousand eighty three should not be viewed as a vehicle to resolve disputes involving visitation rights privileges i mean that's very stairs very strong evidence i don't see how you can custody of her child that this is an end in significant visitation rights nor can it be said says that it's an infant in significant visitation rights where in determining who's supposed to have asked me for specific parts during the summer the parties to work out an agreement clearly those are not the facts before the court and this is the case let me ask you follow up by what judge callahan was asking earlier what evidence is there ever of a conspiracy that this was this officer was acting outside of the normal scope of his dut told her that they had met with an officer the officer isn't identified but basically based on this discussion with the officer we're going to baby be able to overcome the fact that the day before they were  have me and officer who shows up who knows where the parents are going are the male parent is going for vacation you have an officer  jovial comfortable manner and let's not forget something that we haven't brought up there was evidence of in front of the court evidence tampering and to the extent that tape recorder i'm talking about the expert testimony that we presented to the trial court on the issue which is not refuted and which of the officer campbell and his attorney attempted to ask the court to do further discovery on in the courts as well with i can understand why you're asking us now to do for the discovery on the issue when you had all this time right now the evidence is on controverted that there was an evidence tampering and that goes for the heart and this court is allowed to  question whether all these facts consider the familiarity or apparent familiarity that officer campbell had with matthew's father and matthew's father sister the the fact that he had gone and decided for the first time that he was going to depart from his own practice in this treating a situation that you have come up before the fact that has been told that you are that they have found an officer who is going campbell called mr hanson by his first name answer i believe so question he called in bill answer i believe so i'm not quite sure  was there anything else said between them that led you to believe they met on a prior occasion it seemed like it was on a more relaxed basis like they talked for a while you mean the manner in which they spoke was it was an objective question  of the tape it's a red herring i can assure you that's a factual issue but it's a factual issue that has nothing to do with this issue before the court if in fact they want to argue there you know that's obviously something that happened after the fact and issue that's not been fully developed certainly in the court but soon an issue that doesn't bear on the legal issues at least presented in this case which are similar to th rescue case if i said it correctly with the court has any further questions i'd be happy to respond any further in kore