twelfth the thirteenth of twenty twelve yes seventeen months go by right and you still have no room in the room and madison county has a ninety reopen but that was a motion that was just aimed at refuting some allegations about abuse right so once that was done it was done but then in the record on august eighth i see an order requiring the child to attend the edwardsville schools no motion how did that happen i'm unclear at far that was the motion was filed in and believe look there that hearing was held within two days of that i'm not clear and it's unfortunate that i don't have a better curious to me is on august eighth the child was ordered to go to edwardsville and then one week later again without a motion without knows there's a new order that the child is now going to a filed anywhere in the record it is not anywhere in the record and furthermore i think the order of the finding of the word temporary custody there's new findings that this said temporary custody situation was in the best interest of the child and that it does one major issue evidence one of the frustrations that i have experience with this particular case is that the totality of the evidence includes three days of trial we had trial which eleven twelve and we also had this other trial date and what appears to be the judgment is that we focused very very much so on everything that occurred after that original trial date without any sort of going back to those security findings testimony issues that came up and were substantial issues that came up during the initial trial but to get to another trial  protective order it was a motion to reopen bruce was so that the opposing counsel could present evidence about false allegations in the belief that these false allegations should be taken under consideration by the trial or any means decision in regard to custody ok but in the meantime between march and august the following year all these things happen custody was change back and forth schools were changed back and forth and then we end up with another whole two uphill and it can all be related to this one little petition that has four or five paragraphs my understanding is that it is and that's the reason the court reopen that and so what the issue was we began this process of going backwards in time trying to provide evidence to the court of the allegations as they occurred what happened what  just leaders of medical evidence from the doctors teachers students hospital but that's it is confusing i don't i don't understand how this the key to this whole thing based on this motion is i do believe that the motion should never have been granted considering what the trial court knew with the time all the evidence was there are sensitive trial for we need a misjudgment we need to get through this so now it became the entire focus became everything about this incident and the placing blame or putting  she was speaking to a mom who basically apologized for her behavior and just explained that she was trying to protect a daughter so i think it's it's it's unfair to say that mother intentionally i think it's against the evidence to say that mother intentionally to the child without examin then we have july thirtieth another supervised visitation for father right i mean within thirty days between july and august we have this child going from father to mother to know the cetacean for mother i mean the child is being bounced around like a ball and it seems to me that when you're moving a child around you have to have some finding of best interests and i'm assuming it's because of all these orders of protection so like thirty a super visit to supervised visitation for f again i understand his orders of protection by moving this child around well after the ninety days that the court should have issued an order and i court found that the more pose a threat to the child found after hearing y we're looking at it you can't ignore these two other events that happened back when you had mandated reporter there was a two month period had another report by the child read a good reporter does the interview that basically said no she provided this as an emotional restoration yes absolutely not a good decision absolutely but these two obviously i think that just only signifies the issue that this was always going to be an issue of sort of city one person or the other and