continue the child isn't that good at all and he did a great redskin the courts should correct that decision well when you say he's a great risk have there been any proceedings those judgments i'm sorry court also concluded that first of all that there would have been grave risk but for your clients this castro's decision to stay in the united states and send a trial down yeah district judge that it would have been it was risk perfectly fine to send it send the boy back down to to ecuador so what is what what why wasn't that satisfactory that  entered but the district court also made a finding did it not that the courts of ecuador would be fully capable of protecting the child against that risk wasn't that a finding of the little that the child no i don't think that's i don't think that's quite accurate mr gregory she made the finding that the courts of ecuador would be capable of protecting the child period and then she asked the parties  o make some arrangements for effectuating the order the parties then entered a kind of agreement and you did not ask no one asked the district court as far as i can tell from the record to so order that agreement no one went back to the court and said as you might have said well look this is the best we can get mr rubio to agree to but we don't think it's sufficient and here's why and therefore you should revisit your your order in light of what we think would be the only kind of way of making this happen but that none of that occurred ok evidence on the record developed below as to what happened now is that no one on this call not the court not me not opposing counsel knowing what the ecuadorian ecuadoran court can or will do to protect the child in a situation where one parent isn't that kind of child is in the exclusive control of his abuser well when you say cases excuse me when you say exclusive control  was there not an agreement by mr rubio to permit free access by telephone of the child to your client during this period that was the agreement wasn't it correct and if you meant has that have been complied with but this is something even more fundamental i think it is up to the district court not the abuser to determine what is or is not enforceable well has any effort been made either to go back to the district court in light of the violation of this agreement that you allege or to take any action in ecuador on behalf of states that was brought by someone abroad who retained a lawyer in new york and files a lawsuit in new york on behalf of that person residence in the least in the united states residence in the united states is not a prerequisite to filing an action though i don't know whether that's true in ecuador but i also don't see anything in the record suggesting that it's not but i'm just asking you has any attempt been made to get the ecuadorian courts to do anything in this matter by your client since the child's return i'm not aware of but you're on to the board an approved is not on my client  is to make sure that the child is safe until a constant need determination is made is in the united states or in ecuador or wherever the child and up the safety of the child is paramount that's under your health and you don't you haven't been able to say to us any kind of abuse or danger or risk to this child graeme or otherwise since the trials we're trying you know that certain child back it's been brought to this cause attention because of the time to use the joint status update as evidence of protective measures and i don't think it is it is the thing to the court the  adequate medication and place the appropriate burden where it should be placed i think and i think that the court can can go to get away or stick to say that there is no nd bite of the apple and having failed to  i spoke to mr cry on the declaration he submitted in this matter my mother was having regular telephone contact with her son so the record about those contacts your honor there's nothing in the record to to answer any of these allegation but bow whether or not the agreement  abuse of discretion funding that even with these allegations the parson produced the evidence to prove that the average working well and had been capable in our practice of addressing their competing well that i'm reading the district court's opinion correctly i took the district court as holding then the respondent ms been to me a castro did establish a grave risk of harm and then declined in its discretion to withhold an order of return because the ecuadorian courts could take steps to ameliorate that risk in other words there's two things that happen one is  determination of whether a risk of harm exists grave risk of harm exists which would permit the district court to withhold an order of return but that is permissive that's discretionary and then the district court here exercised its discretion not to grant such an order because the ecuadorian courts could ameliorate the risk is that how do you read so you saying that the district court actually did not find a grave risk of harm and therefore that that is the relevant decision that we should be reviewing rather than a discretionary decision a established within the meaning of article thirteen be parties sufficient evidence to prove the capability of the ecuadorian court to resolve their competing allegation and the district court's findings in that regard was not an abus look what is document the document that you're referring to and what exactly does it say ok document seventy two dollars is an affidavit filed on ms capstone that she put in in opposition a document in this court that's in opposition to the motion ok thank you motion to an order to number two every country has found in court system that's the father and the child should be returned to the united states to his mother that's also a possibility that there are some cases that say that that is that there is nothing that can protect the child interesting as a theoretical matter and you may very well be right it just seems to me a rather bizarre scenario if we are really trying to protect the child too and i understand a case is not moot and the supreme court has said well it's possible that we could enter an order of the trip of the child to return and so forth but if we're really concerned about protecting the child who is in ecuador i just it seems a very strange procedure to be spending months waiting for this court to send the matter back to a district court in new york which will then develop a record about whether there is some legal impediment to the child's mother commencing a proceeding in ecuador and if the answer is no there is no legal impediment then what then somewhere down the road six months from now when that's all resolved then maybe she will and maybe she won't avail herself of that opportunity and for all these months the child is in the custody of someone that you refer to consistently and persistently as the abuser and it just seems like a very strange way to try to protect a child but that's but that's how it's done that was how it was done with the french code no end to say excuse me i understand that you may have a right to end we'll have to decide this whether you have a right and it is the appropriate course under american law and under the hague convention for this court to do whatever it can do to try to protect the child including have for the proceedings in the district court including ordering mr bias to bring the child back to new york the likelihood of any of that actually protecting the child seems to me a long shot at best compared to whatever prospects there may be in ecuador to get the ecuadorian courts to intervene if the child is in fact unsafe and if the procedures that were agreed by the parties to try to protect the safety of the child are not being complied with you know that's all i'm saying here it just seems like a very strange thing that no one is asking the court that would actually have not just some legal authority to enter orders to the father but to actually enforce those orders and see to it that they are appropriately that whatever water is entered is appropriately enforced but that's that's that's  your choice and your client's choice and you're here and we have to decide what the legalities are looking at him then mr castro was found to have abused a child in multiple ways not just physically but mentally emotionally neglect dangerous