the state would not require going straight to the information relied on by this expert in reaching her particular conclusion was the type of information that would normally be relied upon by an expert in that particular field crying all night and all morning that was her the basis for her conclusion primarily because the test results do not support her conclusion so i would argue that we investigated evidence cuts against th allegations of the petition which he responded did not contest but in fact stipulated you proved revolved around the fact that each parent separately had been indicated risk of harm by the c f s the father had a fairly extensive criminal history which to open a file and to start a proceeding like this and it's important to remember too that what the allegation of the petition was this is the neglect injuries environment this is not an abuse allegation nor did they need to be a finding as there are in some cases that could be that the abuse that was inflicted by a parent there was no allegation of that there was no finding of that what the people alleged was that the minor was neglected by reason of an injury is environment because of the fact that the restored to fitness had a criminal history and including endangering the health of a child when the judge put back together without even considering that the petraeus report he found that the evidence was sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that this child was the elected by rea twenty four hours later or nearly twenty four hours later that's why the doctors felt and then the judge accepted to a fell from the evidence that the reported history was inconsistent with the report of the action of the child that they that they said oh we checked him and we found nothing and he was fine all day and he was hardly going to bed at night we thought maybe he had a tummy ache but he was fine and it was only in the morning that he wouldn't let us touch like and that's why of the judge included that it could not have happened in the way that preacher wrote in her notes that day and the july fourth opinion letter which was then introduced into evidence was the this statement her inclusion that it was most consistent with inflicted injury that was the only thing that was new in that that's why the people have argued throughout the their brief that she was not and next of opinion doing his make of writing this letter in anticipation of litigation from the fact all the other observations everything else for her first hand observations are examination of the child her interview with the mother and her review of medical records in addition to perhaps looking at records that that came in later from other sources that all the doctors on the first broken leg he says was the result of abuse and neglect the charge was neglect my injuries environment you have parents who have had indications of harm before and now into that environment we have a child a very young child with age no that this child was in the jury's environment we did not alleged abuse we did not allege that a parent inflicted the abuse those that case would have been much more difficult to prove what we're saying here is this child just an injury sometimes because he has this fracture which is highly suspicious  non accidental and he's in an environment with two parents one of whom in particular and each of whom has had some prior indicated reports with d c i fans and one of whom had not spars to have a conviction for endangered life or health of the child the judge finds that without even considering her they he may be that mad he felt that they parents two parents could keep their story straight if they because the judge thought that it was a story i don't know it bothered me a bit but this is not a criminal case where he has a fifth amendment right and with the with the they can draw have you know tripped fall and bumped into something while crawling i think that was more the way that the medical people were using it i think that the judge was more concerned with the fact that even the mother said there was no bruise that the side  said oh yes below the x rays this is where he jumped out of that there was no bruise at that site and there was no favoring of that ledger in the day and everybody said the child was fine during the day i think that the way the judge was looking at it more of an accidental meant that that it was nothing that the child could have caused and apparently i don't know enough about the type of fracture but maybe not something if you were looking to walk that would be consistent with a fall like that but i don't i think the judge is fine with regard to door and then not intended for this to happen the dog jumped into the car onto the child of the the miners light so there is no dispute that this was an accident and despite the would not be proven injuries environment is really a subset of neglect and with respect to the definition is this exactly right everything in life we allow for maturity we allow for people to change in unless somebody can show specifically that that did not occur i think that the burden is on the state to prove that this there's the child basically sent home as it is and and so we don't have a situation where this is even a series of fracture then one would expect necessary this is good now again we're lagging expert evidence testimony as to wh