upon that i think that there's essentially two main ways to need to view the decision of the crowd there is the very narrow facts the sick question of what is the evidence was the decision supported by the evidence and is set forth in our argument in our brief believe that it is the manifest weight standard of review and under that manifest way what i believe is used the appropriate way of looking at it is whether or not the evidence as set forth before the trial court would give rise to the issuance of the planner and when you look at the which is set forth in great detail in the trial court and the if you had if hearing went through each of the specific incidents or less the incidents and there were six of them six incidents and addressed each not the as the trial court put it the environment and atmosphere that was created constitutes harass and harassment is defined both in the statute and through our case  submit to your honor's that nowhere in the record was there any evidence of what would rise to the level of harassment when you look at the when when i look at essentially the start of the sciences and look at all the case  defined harassment and you look at it but there's certainly no bright line passed for this is harassment this isn't harassment but when you look at the case law that we have used what generally constitutes harassment in the context of an order protection what we have here i would submit it doesn't come close there are peace laws there's cases that deal with harassing conduct between adults and i don't the easy answer would be yes emotional abuse under certain circumstances could but i would submit to your honor that we don't have emotional abuse here what we have and what the trial court found here is is that the harassment was based upon alleged day like her father is going to end up in prison because she's a liar like her mother the problem with that finding made by the trial court is that that didn't happen in the end the record makes clear that fact did not happen because what the trial court was referring to were comments allegedly ascribed to the appellant to another adult not in the presence of the minor child but her child wasn't even there i objected and during the hearing in saying well why is it relevant if the child isn't there and it's not said to the child i was on the rule but then at the end of the hearing those were the very reasons that the court found that there was a why i believe that the manifest way it's an error in the evidence because when you look at the record there was no comments made to the child about the child in her presence or directly at her so for lack of a better term the micro or the macro from a very narrow perspective i think just looking at the court's own statement as to that is what constituted harassment it was these statements made to the trial vet that is clearly erroneous because those direct another person to go harass the child that's not what happened here when you look at when you look at the context in which these alleged statements were made this was the st contact between the stepmother and the new baby sitter and she's telling her during the course of an hour all right here's here's the three children you're going to be watching if you're an uprising you love here's here's the little the little fella here is what he likes to do here is the big sister say well i'm not going to do it but you go do it so i guess there would be a hypothetical situation where shirt could i tell somebody to go harass another person and that would be harassment by proxy i suppose within the context of as mommy to to say that you are not allowed as a parent to raise your voice too much or you're not allowed to yell at your children that you're not allowed to deprive them of ice cream or past there's no rule that says this much yelling is too much this much yelling is is too much this much punishment is too much this isn't this much punishment isn't enough but that's why parents are invested through our constitution to essentially make decisions as to how to best parent their children and what if you take out the issue of physical abuse because as the trial court found this isn't an issue of physical abuse this becomes an issue of how well are we parenting children or how is the talent parenting her child and to be more specific scher step child but there were six specific incidents that were that were alleged to have occurred and when you went through each and every one of those six pacific incidents two of them were in the distant past two of them were from i believe the st was twenty four thousand that kicked it where allegedly yelled at the child because she said she couldn't go play until she finished her nd incident which is in two thousand and fifteen when the child was picked up from daycare and then they were sitting in a restaurant and allegedly she yelled at the bad parenting but we have we have vehicles for testing bad parenting and that would be a motion to modify the allocation of parental decision making we don't do that here this was an order of protection that this was the be true all that was used to get an upper hand in a modification of an allegation which in fact the facts were that out because within a week there was a motion for modification  the more macro effect of this you have a question of even if all of this is true does it rise to the level of harassment of a child as we had cited in in our a reasonable when you look at what a reasonable person the emotional effect that a reasonable person may have is different for a child than it is for an adult and it's even further differentiated between the relationship between a parent and a child because parents can the parents treat children way differently than typically they're going to other adults or their peers you're not reprimanding or yelling there was no real guardian ad litum that was able to do an investigation in off her recommendations to the court all we had and all that was based on humans was a twenty two year old nanny who had been involved in this child life for i believe a total of ten days making concludes sweeping conclusory statements that it seemed like she was really sad it seemed like she would put her head you want she said she put her head down well gets reprimanded or yelled at or grounded or deprived of their favorite things they're not going to be happy they're not going to be acting in the same way that they would be when they're out playing with their friends i would expect a seven year old child to hang their ha today that the law prohibits a stepparent disciplining or even yelling at a child but what happened here with very different evidence in this case show that stepmother engaged in a submit that conduct outside the presence of the child may not however where i disagree with opposing counsel is that there were many instances in the record where the stepmother said things to directly to the child and the things that she said to others i think just lends to the credibility that she can say to another person and complain of this child to make these comments it just makes it more credible that she would say these things directly to the child the trial court's decision does make reference to six or seven specific instances now although it doesn't repassed all of the evidence it hurts the thing about what stepmother said thing in its decision the court did find that every court's rationale for our arguments you would agree  i would say that the physical abuse was not proven danny's mother this was also in the petition said that she witnessed a notional use so i think that even though the physical abuse wasn't present was definitely proven if these acts continued after two for another two years and thereafter another two years and thereafter another two years until the child has an an of harassment which it did by the things that she said then that plenty of work protection needed to issue how does this remediate anything just removing the a step parent for two years again i think the court needs to go to the intents and purposes of the act and i think that the court in fashioning a remedy sort of discussed that they said well you know supervised visitation and there's all kinds of things short of a separation for two years well in fact the i believe that was between biological father and child so here it's a stepmother and i understand that she's in the house and she's married to the father pattern and this is the statute on the definition of harassment looks also to repetitiveness and catherine i think that's what the court is saying if you took one little thing in a vacuum maybe that would be harassment there's all of these things before and then gets to the bus stop or you can be one of those back if you can end up in jail just like your mother and then it's on the bus and sensors so i think that's the difference there that's the difference between just disciplining somebody for these legal concepts there to take in a separate set of facts you might have neglect you might have harassment you might have both neither which is more severe is abuse more severe than harassment or and i say that because of use the glass is based upon not thesis usually or misfeasance done it in a harmful way harassment strikes me as mean something based upon the facts in this case and your arguments as to be intentional or with reckless disregard so am i correct in thinking that harassment in the kind of sprigs of this case are the factual circumstances here and is supposed to be something that is  based upon the different statuses or ages of the interacting individuals and i have to admit that i in my lifetime i've been a parent and so i've been in situations where i may have progressed much because they wouldn't do something that i wanted them to and i think the harassment statute talks about attempting to accomplish virtues something in an unreasonable way is there not what is th and therefore if you're going to act in a reasonable way the probability of success on the merits is nil so if you're dealing with a child who's not reasonable or irrational or and so when you start talking about applying reasonable notice to the criteria of the actions that are taken is it not suspect when supposedly the actions that are being taken her supposed to effect you need to also consider some of the circumstances around that not just what was sad the words used but how the demeanor the time when was it sat where was it how was it that great things if you read her decision she says she talks about supervision would be great but it's not an option the problem with that is because father stood by and let this happen he didn't protect me so the only way for her to be reasonable restrictions imposed by a parent and a child might be quite unreasonable in the context of an adult relationship and i think that that is that's how i took your honest question which is that what you might do with your children is it's different than what you do in general society with other adults because the facts are going to be different for a child that you're parenting as opposed to another adult and you're dealing with your day to day  point and then there was argument on the money what did you ask what did you propose as the reason i don't recall if i proposed anything your honor him because i don't know that i was given the opportunity i mean you know parenting comp so to simply if if the goal is to look at the best interests of the child i think that it has to be you have to look at the child's life and how this then affects the child because this isn't in a this child doesn't exist in a vacuum the child has two siblings the child has a home life that has essentially been offended by saying your stepmother who has been married to your father can now will not be around you for two years and it sets up a situation where there's terrible choices that have to be made as a family unit which is if we want faith to be around for siblings then mom can't be there if mom wants to be around the other three siblings fate has to be it throws the family unit into of people and that's why as we argued in our grief i believe that the remedy is fashioned by the trial court was an abus that the trial and i think again i don't want to speak to her and i don't remember if it was at my suggestion or not the busy my point is you're arguing now these are all the things that's wrong for should have done and therefore was an abuse of discretion to do those things and yet you can't tell me what you argue that was why they then when opposing trial counsel said we came in in her argument says we can't do supervised visitation because dad would be the supervisor and it just doesn't work because he's i don't think these are the words i'm paraphrasing  guilty as mom because he let it go up so that was my suggestion if i recall correctly and the trial court addressed that i do know the decision because i know that the trial court said well i can't do supervised visitation because dad  somewhat of a predicament as you're seeing all these things were there and no one raised them well i think i think it did and again i think and speak a one hundred percent that your honor but i think i did and i'm always very proud muslims to not overstep my  your honor would we be a lot because now i do remember i did ask well can we can we accept say school events or school functions and and still maintain we were pressured and have sung guidelines where step mom