the court should find that there is not probable cause to believe that there had been that change circumstances and respondent will be arguing ukulele in this case to the contrary but we do have a probable cause hearing is a every few none the less probable cause hearing where the law regarding probable cause especially as developed in this case  court as it has to find probable cause and what it means is that there is a plausible look count on each element to reasonably believe whatever that proponent is proposing our case the question is not whether or not mr standridge submit to the court that one of the changes would be a a change in the mental health definition of and this case paraph there has been a change and it's not just a cosmetic change if you consider the criteria for diagnosis and the diagnosis for pedophilia the same except for the label instead of being called this is a change in a mental health definition which supports a finding of probable cause if there has been a change it's in circumstances which would necessarily word in front of another but that's not what i'm talking about here what i'm talking about is that there has been a change which uses the language in tense sexual arousal and falling sexual activity with not consenting persons that language sexual arousal and following sexual activity is nowhere to be found in the diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified that was first year of the childless case and october of two thousand and seven and that has been used repeatedly sense in the reports that dr smith has provided to the court this was a change and this is a change which i submit to this court establishes a plausible count for a change and that model health diagnosis that the question strike that's not what i'm trying to say the the language has changed and it's changed in a way that it's not clear to us what it means and that to have that notices does use the saying paragraph that he's years since two thousand and eight over and over and over a day medical diagnosis and i submit to the court that it is unacceptable for present day mental health diagnosis when you have information that is fifteen years old  change involving the sexual activity would be in that we have no evidence of sexual activity and we have today the possible count that i'm trying to address with the court in this case is that with that change in diagnosis and mr standridge is current circumstances fifteen years later what is the application of that diagnosis to the circumstances as mr stanbridge exists today we don't know and the  snus report unequivocally said that response condition had not changed that he was still as he p and he suffered from paraphilia disorder which is a qualifying diagnosis and did as he p x for those reasons the circuit court's decisions should be a because section fifty five days says there must be a change so significant that it gives the court reason to believe that responding is not in s p p here we have one piece of evidence before the court stockist in its sixty six month evaluation court and that says unequivocally without reservation that responded still on sep and he suffers from this qualifying diagnosis i think in response to what respondent said about the change in the d s m five that it's new that we necessarily need some sort of hearing to determine if if there has been a substantial change that renders respondent no longer in as such a violent person things important realise that he's diagnostic criteria and dr s disorder in his report the criteria lays out are substantially similar there's no material change and in any event he applies that evidence makes diagnosis shows no  bad clearly involves sexual activities and even if it is some family including this new element of sexual activity and dr smith doesn't seem to think that it doesn't seem that it does not even if it did that without affecting diagnosis in this case before or now the court  stands in recess until further call