from my understanding there was a two thirteen issue this woman was going to testify as max said for your honor is the issue that we have and i'm sure the porch reviewed the transcript  she began to testify out including things such as whether or not in her expert opinion it would be good for these children to move school districts like it or not in her expert opinion these children it is is this the grandmother who said that she cannot not take her children on a long term basis because of her age that is correct yes ok and it's true of the grandfather as information presented to this court concerning other school districts or whether or not you know that these children actually is only oldest child with kindergarten majorana at the time that this was done whether or not the services could be met the current situation at the time  this case was we had three children six four and three only the oldest child was even in actual injury school he was in kindergarten at this point in time and the only services that this child will receive are speech therapy services and a five minute monitoring for behavior services he's in a regular education classroom so you know there is much to do without all of the difficulties and all of the problems you know that these children may or may not have had and primarily the oldest over the years which in our opinion quite frankly is a giant red herring in this case it was an excuse for a little trial judge to rule in favor of a local party and the little the parents who have been the rural inferior school if you didn't allow her to move the children from the state of illinois you know there is no reason with her the primary caretaker admitted sensually by both parties even the more finals part of its rulings she had primarily a grandparent they were all out with this she had the expertise with which to identify all of these issues and say how it will affect this child and whether or not they are at diagnosis she even went so far as to say she believes the children have other diagnoses that have not been mentioned anywhere were found by any you know medical professionals i was very clear ask and there is no person who ever tested by the way only read with my question that none of these children have ever been diagnosed with reference that it needed to be made this child could have gone and seen there could have been a diagnosis name given that something that needed to be done but it has not been done yet as you pointed out we have not mentioned in ruling from the tour which i think is highly prejudicial i think it is not founded in fact or based on mom i was very clear to object every time questions were asked regarding the not as a spectrum disorder and autism because we are not talking about a child who has been because we wanted to bolster her credibility as a witness and because we have to provide documents that we intend to use to try out i wanted to provide that to the other side after she added if you look at it she wanted to take the deposition of her live and that that doesn't give  he and had previously received the speech third services he was not at the time of trial to the best of my recollection receiving any services at that point in time we have young children who have developmental delays as is very very common now that that child can see another speech therapist and who is one of our and services and that they will not continue to excel just as they would in the ways in county special education during which the district which is where here is located d to and another point that is important in this case to remember is there was a whole lot of testimony here about the history the difficulties with the children yet all of those difficulties had significantly reduced over the years and i do believe that the trial judge