erred when it found that the child was have been residing in parent why at the time of the alleged abduction in october two thousand and sixteen the answer to that question is yes for two reasons first the district court applied the wrong legal standard for determining the patrol residence the district court failed to conduct yet speak up and i'm sorry but taking those universe this district judge did hear both the mother and father testify yes he did hear the mother in the fall and the father said lisa agreed paragraph i would be home that was his testimony and then the district  credited his testimony yes but whether you regardless of the credibility determinations of the trial court it was legal or it was legal ok so then really the second point collapses into the first of those your argument that there's legal error is i saw one of the two that you could make you're saying a shared intent to make paraguayan is not equivalent to shared intent to abandon the u s what's your best authority for finding that there was a change in of habitual residence and in that district court's findings in its order it found that it was the shared intent of the parties for the child to reside in the united kingdom and this court reversed because the district court failed to conduct the threshold analysis of abandonment and this court in suna treats abandonment as a distinct and now cis of its own and the reason it is a distinct analysis of its own and it can't be inferred from a trial court finding that there was that the child was living in  country which because this court has explicitly held that the mere fact that parents have consented for a child to move to a country does not prove that they share the necessary intent to make that new location we disapprove of other courts focus on relocation factors it can't be the child over time baptised dr therefore that's the habitual residence but it seemed to me this district judge was saying they had a share all in this case the court didn't conduct the full abandon analysis and looking at the time text of the case and the district court repeatedly held that the plans the parties clans didn't matter that the plans weren't relevant and in this case and in all had cases when parents disagree as to what should he have done th the court should have looked at the full context of this case because when parties disagree as to what their child's at the two residences the court cannot look at the representations of the parties and give them their face value history of marital instability that predated the but every one of these cases has marital instability the parties did that's why these cases exist there's marital discord so your proposition is that in this in this case the court has said that its ruling was based on the fact that the parties travel to paris why and that they had shared intentions regarding the child's presence in paraguay but the court then said repeatedly that their plans prior to the move to paris didn't matter and in this case you have discussions between the parties written discussions text messages e mails that show since before the time of the alleged move to paraguay in october two thousand and sixteen these parties decided to divorce that miss phillips and the child were looking for an apartment in california and even after the move to parent why they continue to discuss their divorce and they continued to discuss miss phillips and the child getting an apartment in california and that at some point but there is your argument you made below and the record also contain statements that oh we're happy the grandmother is going to build us a house on the property in paraguay and then the mother testifies and said i wouldn't have built that house if lisa weren't going to stay here for good and so you credit the mother i mean it isn't very very apartment miss phillips kept her apartment in the united states the entire time in addition to her testimony about the house on her property mr curtis his mother also testif that at the time that mrs phillips arrived in paragliding in october two thousand and sixteen that the parties were still fighting and they hadn't reconciled but she's at the same time making hopeful statements admittedly just stray ones but i hope we can reconcile hope we can make paraguayan home and then the then they're both u s citizens so the husband is saying sure i want to place in houston and i sure would like one in california since my mother is going to pay for all this would make sense but he says those would be visit so if you credit all that one sided crediting the district court could make that conclusion no in this case mr kerr tez never established when these parties reached a meeting of the minds when they agreed instead he says from since before october two thousand and fifteen through october two thousand and sixteen they were having discussions about the possibility of moving to paraguay in november two thousand and fifteen after date of the alleged move to paraguay mr  tennyson's a text message to miss phillips saying you know i if i go to the u s after you if i go back to the u s i want shared custody and whether we live in the same countries or not i want shared custody and so there was this ongoing discussion and throughout their divorce negotiations in while they were impaired why they were always premised on the conclusion that miss philips and the child would be getting an apartment somewhere in the u s because her maybe she was and there were some discussions about whether maybe when authorities would be an option but there was always a discussion about her getting an apartment elsewhere and it was house for her and her daughter in the united states when you made this statement just a minute ago that there was never a statement by her it would be a paragraph is that faithful to the record i thought there were occasional statements by her that i love to make paraguayan home she uses the word home didn't i believe that was mr carter has a statement is your position your statement is there is nothing in this record where she says make  believe she said that she wanted to to not herself say that she wanted to make paraguayan home that she was open to spending time there ok but that could be very important because if there is a statement by her in text or e mail or testifying that she want to make provide home you're telling me that doesn't exist but if it does exist that's problematic when you're telling us there's not a statement at all by her showing ever intent to make very well would that be very difficult for your position if that statement exists if she said that i want to move to paraguay and make care about my home and stay there and i guess they they're just there that that would that would be very problematic but this court has held that you can take the steps to to acclimate a child to a country you can you can get a lease in a new country you can get and roll that child in daycare but that doesn't mean that you agree to abandon the prior habit to a residence and in this case in that you have the text messages in november  evidence of his view that this was temporary that the district court excluded because there were pieces of evidence you offered that work screwed by the district court would you tell me what the best piece of evidence going to shared had to abandon that you couldn't get in because the court excluded the best evidence that we could not get in was that from that involved mr card tez was his e mails where he was looking for an apartment for closing argument was rejected what else occur did you feel didn't allow you to present your cases to shared anything there there was there were say we had to put on a very lengthy offer proof stood out to the biggest issue would be the exclusion of evidence and the inability to introduce corroborating evidence to bolster our client's credibility and but but you think you made a man be awful we did the bench for yes your honor it was about trial and review three accepted and then therefore essentially was aware of the facts for his own decision what was the premise for accepting it for our review in case he's wrong it doubt doubt was the premise of of accepting the offer perth now in october two thousand and sixteen mr carr tazz employed their systems of a family friend an attorney to negotiate the divorce settlement and as part of that divorce settlement they continued what they've been doing since before their arrival and paraguayan and that was looking to get lisa and the child an apartment in the united states and that friend told her you can leave at any time and that friend according to mr curtis his mother's testimony had discussions with them while those negotiations were going on and that shows a continuing consistent pattern that this family was in a state of flux there was no need in the mines there was no shared intent instead they were taking it step by step day by day trying to figure out what they were going to do next and there is continuing course of conduct from september two shit was stating to out the trial and i think even in his order that plea and unaccomplished are meaningless with regard to shared intents that's that's a big problem for me a plan someone future plans would ever be house in the united states but the district court said i would consider that that's not relevant that i don't see how you can square that with bears asking yes so my clients testified that he was looking into getting apartments in california the parties met in california there was a light to visit california and that he was impossible going at apartments as this family has an apartment in miami apartment in europe way as you get a part meant in california for the family to visit that does not have any does not contradict his plan to move to paraguay and reside in paraguay the reason i think judge white said that that's not relevant is a it was before the time period that was relevant as case the move of the entire family in october two  fifteen until october two thousand and sixteen when she came to houston he said that the where's the law that it get allows a district judge to say this is the relevant time period to find shared what case in any circuit says you can corriveau out in freeze frame when you find the shared i would think is very clear you've got to look at any statement the two of them are making about where they intend to live and i think the judge did consider all the testimony but decided what does the judge consider the testimony of the judge said is not relevant because she doesn't she isn't there now it's a future plan how did he consider it if he said he isn't going to consider well i think that he was saying that she can say whatever she well you definitely heard a lot of testimony on the hot and and so i mean it was definitely discussed in the trial about this and this inquiry and possibly going into california but i think it is paraguay and talked to over two thousand and sixteen there was nothing offered and not period that miss phillips was looking continue looking in california there was some evidence of the district court discredited her so offer me clearer view if there's no legal  to the end of the span he drives them to the airport and consents to the child leaving is that correct yes so given that his statements before after they've come in when they leave don't reflect any notion the child hold on was the accomplished plan because he did look at that the parties were there some february two thousand and fifteen in paraguay to august two thousand and fifteen making plans might mr card has actually moved to paraguay and the family was joining them for an extended stay to check out the situation in paraguay and if that would be an appropriate place for this child that is when mr cortez's mong made a promise and said if you decide to move your child to paraguay i will build a home for you and they looked into employment  client was working separately there and in fact miss phillips actually worked there for a short period of time for the family and when they came back they made plans my client of the rest of his belongings par their plan to move to p r away yes the parties got into an argument but they reconciled in fact when they moved in october two thousand to fifteen to paraguay the house was under construction the parties slept in the same bedroom as married couples and they continue to reside there in december of two thousand and fifteen the child is baptized in miss phillips chooses the godfather who resides in south america as a relocation factors and that's getting into a third circuit test that we have an embrace so i if you look at what the parties did it does support that they had an agreement to move this child relocate this child to a new country and that was paraguay they looked into it they made ongoing plans and then they actually put their plan into fruition context that my client decided to me to paraguay and and that you know he affirms that he in fact did that if you read the entire piece sixty nine you see that she even says i want the child to be with you or i would have left a long time ago she goes through and talks about how she was struggling she's thought about it a million times all the benefits a child has in paraguay and you know to move back as more it was a focus on her and they have a discussion about that and  e to say that she didn't intend to live there in fact she did she assess the situation before she moved there what kind of situation this little girl would have in paraguay then she moved and it was so good despite the marital discord just complex she sta twos for the child to stay and yes she got a boyfriend in january two thousand and sixteen and made twelve trips to buenos arias to visit this man without this child leaving this child in paraguay with his family where these two people are  together and they had discord and it wasn't a traditional in the sense of they were living the same house but they were living on the same property they were living and different buildings on mr card has his mother's poverty and part of mine is we were viewing this court applies the majority approach to turning of the chill residents and that is stated in the lobby case it begins with the parents and tents and the child's experience is not ignored but greater weight is given to the part of the parents facts that could go into a commission also going to share it intends what they did before planning and actually accomplishing their plan by moving to paraguay shows that these parties passport to the immigration service as it reflected why is she going with the us passport my client's mother sarah card has actually had the child's paraguay and diplomatic passport she was in miami at the time so she asked sebastian to go and tell the authorities at the airport that she would as soon as she returned come to the airport and show that she in fact has a diplomatic passport of the child and that is all he had requested he before she left he went to the authorities he went to this and the actual police authorities the day after he went to the police authorities he went to the central authority to file an hague application in paraguay within days of her leaving he did not consent for district court thought that meeting of minds had been shown so i don't so i my position is that on october eighteenth two thousand and fifteen they had a meeting of the minds to change just hold residents to paraguay you can also there's a evolve during the stay i'm saying that it happened when they moved because they had been planning to move they had been planning for this far for almost the majority of two thousand and fifteen when they actually moved they stay in the same rez they say in the same rubble when you try to pinpoint it though is you have exhibit evidence showing he's contacting the divorce attorneys in that exact period and then you have him on the stand saying i didn't know where they were going to live at that point in september i know and the volatility of the marrons they're kind cites eleven inconsistency in her statements and evidence also when she testified she specifically testified she did not speak spanish and we a peach during trial we had text messages where she was texting back and forth in spanish and when an audio recording where unreliable based on record behavior her manner of her testimony and our actions about disputed periods testimony and inferences that logically flow from it coupled with her conduct support the court's finding that  testimony was unreliable credibility is assessed by the trial court who are the eyes and ears of this court he sat through three days of trial saw the witnesses face to face and made a credibility finding find that they had shared intent to establish a vigil residence in paraguay and his analysis included the finding that the that they abandoned the united states of america the record supports that the parties formulated an intent to establish paraguay as a child residence and the determination that the child's a bit of a residence is paraguay should be affirmed and this court's finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole if you look at the facts the actions of the parties corroborate my client vis sebastian's story and accounts of what happened they mean the they had planned and evaluated the opportunity they actually moved in despite a marital discord and despite miss phillips finding a new man and pursuing other life dreams don't work they were definitely playing the intent to allow the child to stay and i'm sorry what was your where they are both in their early twenty's at that mid to early twenty's at that time the issue with october eighteenth two thousand and fifteen the date of the it led to  when miss phillips and a child arrived in paraguay is that even mr curtis his own mother testified at trial that when they arrived they were still fighting and had reconciled that they quickly shack up and start st staying in the same room together yet they did but that lasted moments and there was no reconciliation mr cortez admitted in his testimony at trial that they never reconciled between the periods of september two thousand fifteen when he told her he was going to divorce her in october two thousand and six the date is also problematic because mr kerr tess's date seems to change and the facts seem to change depending on which court he's speaking to he told the paraguayan court in his application and for that for they take return that the child had been living in paraguay since september two thousand and fifteen he told the district court that the child had been living in paris since since september two thousand and fifteen he stated in his into rock authorities that the child had been living in paris since september in two thousand and fifteen and in his deposition he stated he tried to explain this discrepancy the fact that the child was not even present in paris why in september two thousand and fifteen difficulty though is these these discrepancies both people were very unstable but the district court was pretty pronounced in its conclusion as to who to believe but the problem is that with all of these discrepancies there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds and october two thousand and fifteen mr carter says oh mom says that on that date the resting place in the world is paraguay for these for these flying birds and your honor before that the child was habitually residing in texas that both parties stipulated to that on the record that we don't i don't we don't the fact that they have homes all over the place that's his family that's mr curtis his family miss phillips was divorcing from that family mr cutts has me keep apartments all over the place but miss phillips separating herself she was trying to reach a settlement negotiation with this family says that she could keep the home we're just deciding which court system makes the decision well notably mr cortez filed for divorce in texas in february two residing have been a resident of texas for the prior six months residency under texas law requires intent and so you have these conflicting statements still president he is he is still present this issue could be decided have again the repeated history of the fact that this family was talking about not just miss phillips but all of their text messages and e mails are constantly referencing miss phillips and the child getting an apartment in the united states wants her lease expired i thank you counsel your time is expired they thank you very much