decision now we submit that the court's decision here was an abuse of discretion because it improperly granted this positive weights to one of the factors in this inquiry which is immigration to the detriment of all others that's the only way of reconciling it's finally that sees the district court is holos i'm satisfied that the transition while perhaps challenging is not wenching somebody out of a well will settle whose issue in the united states so and then says as to the immigration consequences does not airport but if there isn't no brazilian court order on custody apparently the father would never went to a brazilian court court they don't decide custody matters we would agree on it based on the plain language of a car which is the conventions implement the statute that statute this claims that a bishop ports cannot enter into the underlying merits of the presumption recognizes a presumption in favor of returning the child courts have said that the affirmative defenses on which the mother is relying should be merely construed the article eighteen of the judge finds one of these affirmative defenses exists he has the power to have the child returned and the issue of the well settled defense imo defense is really the one thing that the mother's grief doesn't recognize is that the judge was the fact finder the judge weighs all the evidence the judge draws infringes the judge decides who and what he believes and the judge here clearly did not believe a lot of what the mother submitted  were perhaps even from witnesses over whom she had influence and the mother's grief was written as if everything were they came out of her mouth is set in stone and the judge did not have to accept her testimony the issue of the well settled defense aside from the immigration issue there is plenty of evidence that the situation was not stable here mother they live in the mother in the children live in the basement of someone's home they pay rent to live in the basement they have no lease mothers work if you look in the child's therapy records from october  about six or seven months before trial it states that mother is having trouble finding a job at trial she testified she was working for a paint company doing some painting sometimes in this i mean a restaurant to work sometimes they send me to clean houses mother doesn't have a green card there's no evidence she has any thought of work permit or visa the court was free to infer that she's working under the table that's an unstable itemize any findings on those issues but he did say this is a very fact intensive analysis that i have to do and i have considered all of the factors and this court is entitle to make supplementary findings from the from the evidence and also under the harmless error rule the judge could give me on those and i don't think come to the same findings we don't why are judges when they reach a conclusion supports the conclusion it's reached the immigration question i think is a difficult one there is a question about how much weight it was given it's not a per se rule your honor i will also say that in terms of the the ruling that came down just i have not the ruling but the hearing notice the mother received just after judgment in this case saying you have to come back in three years for an asylum hearing  she she brought a motion for a new trial on that evidence but she testified at trial that the process for her asylum proceeding could take another two to three years so there was nothing new about that it was just it was just form alliances in terms of whether the court can consider it although the judge does discuss that in the hearing and in his written injunction order he doesn't say that that was  not allowed to make custody terminations nampa nonetheless he seems to have well he in this was not disputing that appeal by mother the other brazilian law the father had custody rights to the child you know so they both have custody rights so why is remanding simply to the father's custody right i believe it was his understanding that mother was unlikely to go back to brazil mother is free to both parents does it matter even she's not in brazil i don't think so your honor i think that those rain sinks or continue to exist but she or he will have to start a proceeding in brazil that's what the whole a convention is about she has to bring a custody proceeding in brazil i mean time i don't think she loses her rights but the child is going to be living with the father which she doesn't want sole custody my consuming is that i did just want to point out in the child's therapy records which are in the hounded volume of the appendix on child was st brought i believe to therapy in the foll records say that through storytelling the child is expressing her sadness and anxiety about separation anxiety from father mark sixty two thousand and nineteen the child is not happy or excited is she used to be she doesn't like school she doesn't understand that she's bored in my office she's happy when she's playing with my sandbox which reminds her of brazil all of that also speaks to the issue of whether the child is well  he doesn't believe mother he thinks he orchestrated brother child illegally but then started building this case to try to show a well settled sense that it  a lot to his credibility assessment of of a lot of the evidence or