it was created to protect people from being abused or otherwise mistreated in the manner that is described in the act it was not intended to be used as a and this is part of the record back in november of two thousand and sixteen the mother tried to restrict the obvious visitation privileges even further than what they were originally restricted in the heard in january and enlarge the father's visitation privileges to be equal to that of the mother he would postpone the beginning of that one week on one week off schedule and tell jean didn't get what she want in this case she did not get what she wanted in november of two thousand and sixteen and not surprisingly the first day at the one week on moment off his official curt there was an orchestrated event in our opinion that happened by alienating parent create a disturbance in the target parent's home that escalated to the point where the next that is tempered of course excessive corporal punishment which will get you a minute which is what the only supreme court says we need to look to in determining whether or not there was abuse in this case ok thank you the this was actually written by in mississauga i'm here today to argue the facts but merely because i think the facts demonstrate that when you apply the law identified in our brief and in our apply brief it is quite clear that the decision two older children the child at issue is j h r e h twelve at that time in the process of being at c b s they had to have a discussion john as a different path to pursue when the child became defiant and argumentative he much the pharmacist's the only player in this game who has no skin in the game i certainly witness has no skin in the game briefs to suggest to the court that it is not appropriate not not an even more importantly not necessary to do the ellen like juvenile court act or the  way that you're ever going to stop it because there always be cases brought by the department of children family services if you look at their brain and read those cases judge the vast majority are department of children and family services only different law from what is the law and the definitions under the element of domestic violence and that's where we are that's the law that that you know our opinion judge justices must be applyin this case with respect to this second real issue is ok let's focus on the side because you're saying ok we're only focused on this and yet you know and so what specifically begin by saying i think with all due respect to steve counsel he's kind of missed the point we're here about that portion of the domestic violence act that talks about reasonable direction of a child which is a carved out exception for abuse not correct we need to because we have no definition yeah in the lion's case which is almost squarely on point with this case the teacher did exactly the same thing put a child on the ground but instead cost actual physical injuries to  no i think the lawyer is just the opposite the heat and the judge is forbidden in prohibited to make the credibility determinations at that point if there have to be credibility of  wrong in having removed or not order any way you want but i believe there should have been provides visitation when you find the parent has abused the child i don't know why you would allow the situation