court in ohio corrected what i need to correct an intern other order right yes that was later on but on the date that we are on the date that this was filed this summer the twentieth two thousand and twelve there was no there was no modification of backhaul for you know by the time you arrived at the hearing where the mother was contesting you there had been a modification is that accurate i believe so i don't have all of the i don't have a court records from ohio i do believe that it was continuing a middle child but on the date like i said on summer the twentieth there was a modification and we didn't think that that should be the date i don't think so and you know like i said if i'm wrong i'm wrong but i think what we're looking for is not in force majeure modification we're just looking for registration so i think in accordance with the fact that he wanted to register on the california order in illinois if there had been proceedings occurring in ohio i think would not have been important or relevant because we were at that point where he was at that point trying to modify or which day when he was in illinois or to the school in argentina or i think there and i think i may have both sides disagree on that i don't know the exact timeline i do know that he was he was in illinois with his father at the time he was attending the argenta school and that the the hearing of a motion to dismiss in january the eighteenth i believe he was that's when the judge ordered back taken from he picked up an arch at school after school by the mother and che of the child's life but the mother did have custody pursuant to the california order is that correct if that's correct that's correct i know there were you're not you don't have when the father had the child right right and she was the custodian here i believe i believe  eight hundred rights makes reference to it says any other orders that are not contradicted by two thousand a judgment still now in the two thousand and six and two thousand and seven i believe that there's joint custody to register and that order indicated that the mother was the custodian and then the dad would have visitation in that illinois would have jurisdiction the two thousand and eight your most recent order the order that you are trying to register right i don't believe that makes reference to to the mother having and it discusses the mother having increased visitation with the child additional visitation periods occurring one week every month and that when the mother visits illinois she's not to leave they can count the story and in illinois in the meantime we're only asking for registration we don't think a frustrated actively in fact proceeding in ohio or in any other state i think once we get to the point plan we want to enforce and or modify that's the time that the court said consider the proceeding in ohio at that time not at the time that we're looking  and and so you you're the representing today not your point were you you are representing to the court that that stipulation that followed somehow changed custody  saying the mother was going to move to ohio and that she could do that and the order basically said that all prior orders that don't conflict with this stipulation will still remain in effect so wouldn't it be true to say that that means the mother remained the i'm very residential facility yes but then your client came to illinois and misrepresented back to the court well and that may be true he was working with our office at th correct but that doesn't mean that he didn't he didn't try to hide the two thousand and six and two thousand and seven orders he's he provided the two thousand and eight order and made reference to any other order you know still being an a i don't mean to speak for my colleagues but i can tell you that when i was the trial your client would have been in jail for contempt for thinking i understand what your opinion of my client is and that he may not have been forthright with what he said to the trial court but we don't think that's a reason for not simply register again we're not looking for enforcement or modification that we don't thin child returned to her she had to use the authorities in macon county the sheriff's department to get the child can january of this year the child this other question was raised the child was  school in the beginning in the fall of two thousand and in macedonia ohio be teflon between they're going to leave and he went to a head start program then he entered kindergarten for the two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve year and for two thousand and twelve two thousand and thirteen he was in the in that elementary school in ohio attending first grade on december twenty first and december twenty eighth chad was still in ohio when mr meyer filed all these things but in we would not be here there are three california orders you only attempted to use one he doesn't want to the court to pay attention to the first or second page of the two thousand and eight order only thirty page which talks about visitation for my client when the child would be here mr meyer never follow that order anyhow he moved in two thousand and two miles four different times before the courts he has submitted affidavits in ohio misrepresentation he also said under penalty of perjury a state that you order has not been modified that's an absolute lie the order at that time when he made that statement had been modified two years now illinois since approximately may fifth two thousand and seven that is an absolute fly mr meyer effected that then to the state of illinois between probably over september or october of two thousand and eleven until december of two thousand and twelve hasn't he hadn't even visited the state and then took the child to live with his parents when mr meyer stated that he a sole physical custody of the minor child there is not any order that ever gave him custody he says that mother was awarded visitation every other weekend that was a that's a misrepresentation that was only for the summer when he was to have the trial he said the macon county the station for her had to happen in macon county as a child abduction prevention just oriel they were in ohio has been modified six times there was no notification or service of his petition he couldn't have succeeded in getting this order you get to do it do will get to do a star and he can read register it and file but he couldn't have that happen because the cat was out of the bag at that point in time he needed it to happen  admonition i'll never forget this phrase first time i've heard him compain effective july twenty first two thousand and eight i don't know what happened on july twenty first two thousand there doesn't have to be reporting for what they say they spoke of and what the trial judge said was only procedural matters and matters of record and they were not talking of the substance of the case they're arguing that there's an this is a different way of thinking but it's what happened there was never request in macon county for the courts to talk because as the appellate the said jurisdiction was not the issue that was raised by mr meyer nobody ever asked the proceedings are the order has been modified five times now since december twenty sixth two thousand california mr meyer has new counsel in ohio in february again counsel sort of makes reference to the father's plan to to proceed in december two thousand and twelve without mother presen thinking that it would be you know he would only be able to get it passed or get it registered in illinois without the mother present and i don't necessarily think that's true i mean he knew that everything would be on the record he knew that mother would get access to to the illinois border when he knew that there was a potential for a motion to dismiss to come forward so i don't i don't necessarily think back he was trying to to fool core and that in that regard because everything was on the record at that time and there was a chance for our court hearing in january and i think in terms of notice and service again he believe