something that the defendant's head of today the statements the defendants argue that the statements are capable of inducing construction when she you know her grandson was in kindergarten at the times and had been in she alleged that she had been working there for eight years and she had this relationship she had been in the school since prior to the kid even being born and while of course the kids well being is important she also has her own independent rights now i know also say that she doesn't have a right to interact with her grandson in school i don't think that's a protectable right and if the but parent questions to the school district that that particular teacher doesn't interact with the student and if the school district decides to honor that request i don't think th what can cannot really we saying the fact that there's an e mail saying that your client is in bibi's classroom at the end of every day to help the children put in c is is that why isn't that an innocent construction in that statement because i think that there is that still zeroes in too much to takes way too much of the kind of ones i think in there is the it's not good it's not that you can't consider it's the can't consider outside information information that's apart from the publication but what i'm saying say if you completely divorced in the complaint the divorce i think is relevant for understanding the role complaint for understanding the actual malice which i do think it's appropriate in terms of just in determining whether the specific  is per se then i think given the i believe that the law is that you're supposed to consider so for instance if there's one statement in there that's the defamatory part you still you read the entire emails  taking a million dollar retainer with they said this is that this was a book about a game store corruption and in the context of what they're saying in the full context of the article you see what he said was there was the implication specifically it was just the only reasonable imprint interpretation that one can draw we view those that statements that million dollar retainer in the context of the entire publication and so what i'm saying  times that she did come in was not of her own doing in breaking the rules but rather because there was a specific request put to her to come in first pacific purpose by teachin they it's what it's defamatory because what they nothing wrong with it grandma wanting to see her grandson but it turns out that in the opinion of the parents for the mother and stepfather it's upsetting the board and they don't want that to him i would say that there's nothing wrong is one of the things in your pleading is that you don't mention the approach part and she acknowledges that she if it was if it was just a hello i think whatever but i did did the idea was is that is that if we don't we don't have just an approach we don't just have to actually passing we have a specific thing she was told not to do as such i'd like to just briefly hit on a few overarching themes that i think are pertinent to the court's consideration studies as i sort of going through each statement which i'm more than happy to do as well and the first one of those is that most of said defendant improperly inserted into the motion to dismiss were nothing new and by that i mean that they were found in the exhibits that were attached to the monday complaint and of course those exhibits are part of the complaint plaintiff's spends most are at least much of her briefing complaining about this those statements being included in the motion dismissed i don't think they stand on very firm ground there because early part of the pleadings and subject to attack in a motion to dismiss second city center there were any extraneous allegations and there were one or two i think the only one plaintiff actually references is that which parent had primary custody of the b of the time the trucker was very careful not to dismissing the trial court's order center not on any factual disputes which were defeated two six one five motion dismiss but on the fact that the trial court simply disagreed with planus interpretation of the statements at issue of the statements that issue the meaning of disputed statements isn't a fact that can be you know alleged and accepted as true counsel just cited to a case that to a case is very clear on that and that's why we cited in our we only had to accept in the trial court only had to accept for purposes of the two six one five motion the existence of the statements themselves and that's exactly what happened here the fact test they did enter the trial court didn't accept that interpretation isn't a reason to defeat the two six one five motion or the reason obviously to overturn the order how about on the qualified privilege or the privilege period gap one doesn't get the same exception that innocent construction and opinion get to see fifteen mean it's it's different and while we accept the fact that the parents would be concerned about this child working mom and her husband would be or because i think it's important element in this case and obviously even if the court filings that the plaintiff sufficiently or defamation per se claim or the court finds that plaintiff for the first time this context i believe the it's actually and correct i think the was quite clear that it's a legal question to be decided by the courts when when and this is the important part of it when the facts i'm wishy assertion of privilege relies on the face of the complaint and that's concerned parents to school administrators about the wellbeing of their child that's well within the four corners of the complaint in the exhibits i think it's very clear from the exhibits and that easily falls into the restatement test which we go through  think that the situation i was contemplated by the trial court is actually very compelling illuminating for purposes of the value weighting whether the qualified privilege exists and applies here and i should mention that not even playing to the challenges on appeal whether or something similar a child comes home from school maybe his or her face is scuffed up maybe their clothing crying maybe they see him withdrawing maybe say the rainbow you fight another student at school or that a teacher said something that scared them or did something that was inappropriate the parent rightfully is going to feel compelled to call the school administrators and to straighten that situation out and to ensure the safety of their child do we wellbeing of their child i think the answer to that is very clear we've seen the consequences the horrific consequences of breakdowns in communication between parents school staff and school administrators  wellbeing of a child in the still tragic or most benign circumstances that can lead to things like depression and children and long term mental health issues in the most extreme but all too often circumstances that can lead to things like suicide and school shootings we just saw another school shooting in only elementary school in south carolina yesterday so it might even use the bully situation as the almost four corners analysis creates a problem i think in this case any way i don't really use that example to show that when we're talking about the general type of communication which i think we're compelled to we're talking about a communication between the parent and the school administrator who the subject of that communication is doesn't enter into the restatement test well i agree with the bowling analogy doesn't fit perfectly and in this specific factual context that's something that we will test that applies each statement to the assertion that supposedly makes that statement defamatory that he was upset and as i said before that is a matter of pure opinion we're not talking about mixed opinion here it's a matter of pure opinion what whether a toddler is a matter of opinion what made that toddler upset is a matter of opinion plain isn't just that there's an allegation of insubordination i don't think that's actually anywhere to be found in there are in their amended complaint there is a opportunity to replete i don't believe it your honor and the reason i don't believe it is because the trial is there's only three statements that are issued so no matter how they lead them they're always going to be subject to it as you construction they're always going to be opinions and they're always record is very clear the pleasure still works for the school district she's still free to teach at the about four other schools in that district they haven't played any harm whatsoever and the financial harm as they were partially due for the tortious interference anything to do with the welfare of this trial and that's what bothers me the most about this case counsel i don't think there's anything in about saying that a teacher comes in and helps students with work every day and she makes a point to see every day i t defame the football coach the football coach and son in the person who sent the letters were both competing for the quarterback position pope policy concerns in protecting the parent's right to communicate there's also policy concerns that look you've got it you've got two sides in the family they exclude the worse and there they're both related to this kid and if the one if one parent is making the various defamatory statements to eliminate the grandmother from a grandchild well that's it is your opinion but there are plenty of cases it's easy to say that there is a generalized statement like that is not subject to specific verification so it