entered march th of last year related to events that allegedly occurred on january th and passing on this case it is important that the court be aware of the law on history of antagonism that has existed between the petitioner jennifer h respondent matthew hoh point of the matter years and in considering this case it becomes important to note that because that's what puts this case in context i was to limit matthew's time with the child that is on the st page of the record in the forensic evaluation from dr cause mickey which is in evidence and it is significant that it is an rebutted and frankly uncontested dr cause making determine a number of things about jennifer  parker hoeing that relate directly to the foundation from which this case arises st doctor cause make you determined that it was jennifer hordes go to reduce matt's time with parker secondly he determined that in the course of jennifer dealing with parker that she pressured parker to report negative things to her about her allied with his mother and was aware that he received secondary gains from saying things to his mother of a negative nature about his father the circumstances are in the evidence is certainly from dr cosmic he's testimony that after each visit with the father the mother questioned the child about what happened a essentially encouraged him to say these kinds of negative things so it is against that backdrop that the facts of this case arise this case arose on alleged event from january th of last year at that time bat's time with the child was that he had four hours on a monday and four hours on the tuesday on that day and his mother denise picked parker up playing forward four fifteen pm for a four hour here is it was during that four hour visit that the petitioner claims that that matt choked his mother in the presence of the child and abuse the child by so doing and based upon that she goes into court on the following day to get an the judge the copy in the court file or any copy that's been circulated their strengths and signature question may arise as to whether that under that circumstance of the order is even valid but nevertheless that's the case the order as it were is a printed form order in which essentially a judge greer and goes through and checks all boxes and then that is the order that was filed in the case now it is from that order that this appeal arises there are a number of things as i say that should be noted and then leading up to  this st obviously the reporter of the event was jennifer hoeing the significance of the background between jennifer and and matt is worthy of note and bad as i indicated for that order judge what deadspin said in the record as he was making his ruling is that we could file a separate petition for something but that order on its face precludes contact and again the circumstances claimed in this were st that man had allegedly choked his mother in front of the child the record allegedly occurred at four hundred and thirty all three of them testified that the alleged event never occurred the only witness who asserts that any such an advance occurred three inconsistent mutually exclusive stories of what happened and so i would submit to the court that we began with the fact that the child's versions both in terms of court testimony they purported amended petition that was never d a lab it was filed in sand and the original petition are inconsistent about what was what allegedly happened judge's ruling in this case your honor is it court questioned the credibility of matt jim and denise because they all that this court might consider in determining why they took they recounted the same advance is because the truth doesn't bear and if they're telling the truth about the events that occurred they likely would all be telling the same story that unfortunately is something that the trial court every assume the next day is we have pointed out and that again i would this is in the brief and or the child's testimony and it's very difficult to understand have a court could determine that the child was the evidence and the point i get to about that judge is when the testimony of the folks the adults in this case are consistent and the testimony of a trial is inconsistent it's a bit difficult to determine that the met a fast way to the testimony has been met the other thing that i want the court to consider in his case only we dealt with this  our brief and i would have the court take a look at its decision in the landmen case which was cited at no point in this case did the judge make the requisite findings to enter the order of protection the court and we detail this and worrying what the court did was it said he finds that by a preponderance of evidence it's been proven or and thirty seven paragraph and that this court made it a very clear finding in reversing an order of protection in that case starting at paragraph seventeen going through eighteen and nineteen that in order for the order of protection to stand the court has to make specific findings in this case may that are in the court's announcement from the bench or in the circuit they have been and i simply would ask the court to take a look at the record in this case because d the predicate for entering the order of protection was to make those findings and that didn't happen that in that it sounds according to this court's landmen decision is sufficient to set aside the order of protection simply would direct the court's attention to our two hundred and fourteen where ever in this case is the court completely ignore the underbody testimony of dr frank because mickey who was the court appointed forensic abadi waiter of the parties and we have gone through in our brief in some detail the findings of dr cosmic his testimony that starts at page thirty of the brief in which dr cause meant he acknowledges and forecast frankly that when maps visitation with the child started to return to normal you could anticipate that jennifer would instigate something in an effort to a complete restoration of his normal visitation significantly two things happened in october she made a b c f s report against matt which was unfound the testimony didn't establish that the very alleged in the order of protection took place in the trial court fighting the contrary was er case does not arise from the many years of litigation that have occurred in this matter this dispute arises for of events transpired on or about january th two thousand  befall parker oil which for his two times a week for our visitations with his father his father was a toxic eight jennifer hoey testified that father was toxic a day that testimony was over but by anyone presented evidence this she she finds the number one that he previously had found by a preponderance of the evidence this is actually a case number two thousand and seventeen o p i don't want to cite back to that rather i want to talk about what the judge s protection by a preponderance that's on the record it's part of the judge's findings secondly the judge makes findings with respect to parker wholly and his can be his continued safety and well be the judge specifically states c toward the end of two thousand and eighteen this is why parker holy began seeing dr clipper only very recently and very near in time temporal proximity to the order of protections not because he was brought it was dropped off with his mother he presented with his mother at franklin county sheriff's department this is important your honor is because there was not enough time frankly for parker ho it is mother to c this story that the dad was drugged which he called jennifer how in the middle of his parents intoxicated you know he testified that she believed he was intoxicated because he was already strange and screaming at her  determinations of being there what you're her to not is you know obviously difference here is that and i want to direct your letters to a good example that judge didn't use he took testimony from jim or james how he that's  witnesses being able to hear the inflections their voice being able to hear or watch who they're staring at and in this case i was there and so it was just generally it was doubtful that you could tell that something was up what e reason for that is again this is another independent interview with parker hole where he tells the same story that he told his mother that he told the deputy make it that he told to report does he doesn't think mr hard is st of all judge with regard to the c f s report then we should note is at the time of the hearing when judge then made his ruling the fs record had not been compiled i represent matt in the appeal of that record and the record had not been compiled at the time of the erie my question is how in the world can the record which did not exist at the time james dan decided when he does that it now support the appeal st nd the d c fs report is hearsay it is statements of witnesses interviewed by us the c f s worker who is not a judge who is not a lawyer and lord knows what qualification is and certainly a circumstance in which man is deprived of any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses she allegedly interview then x we don't have any idea who she even interviewed for heaven's sakes in terms of relevance so it simply is remarkable that we could assert or that he could assert that there is under any circumstances that the statute sets of seven dollars precludes under any circumstances no matter what the admission of anything obtain and in counseling in evidence in any administrative or judicial proceeding the point is to maintain the confidentiality of the counseling as we have indicated in the brief there is one case by the appellate court which has be it's not limited to court appointed counsel it refers to all counseling sessions so dr clippers being allowed to testify to that wasn't clear violation of that counsel of that statute and unclear by lation of the court's holding d in the noise case of the other thing that i guess i'm left with here is and twenty an event happened between matt and his mother which in some way would have amounted to abuse of the china the sole and only people who would know anything any serious way addressed by council and i guess the point that we should make here is that you simply cannot preach assume that the world didn't exist before january t