off just because the parents were trying to reach or because the child the sick and they were frustrated and by the time they attacked a father got hold of her most heartening to her it's like my sense of it was he was telling her if you're not going to care for i would they allow the father to continue to see the child they were allowing her to see the child and she missed many opportunities to see the child and then this turmoil arose so  you know you thought if they said no no no i don't think this is actually spoken the right from the turmoil of the facts that have developed i think it was probably why you're welcome to see your child have contact with your child as to share the consent dot i mean process but we're going to get to the same place and she's not going to have any rights whatsoever i i go there is your question i don't think the facts f i would like to point out a few things as this court has noted for has noted that the standard in this case is was the decision against the manifest weight of the evidence i think if this court looks at what is being argued essentially there are no legal issues really being attacked the only thing that's been attacked is the decision by judge block man where he has listened to the evidence he has evaluated all the witnesses his  been observed the issue here is was there fraud how we got to the beginning of the adoption i think just spoke if you look back your understanding of the record is essentially correct the from my client perspective what they testified to was they did the statement by mr rousey was that we're view then you told us you were going to leave your daughter with us for a week it's now been two and a half weeks she said how can we care for her if you're not going to care for her why don't you let someone else adopt and all of a sudden he gets the response back well do you want to he was completely caught off guard he had talked to his wife  january if you look at the testimony yet they're asking this court to believe that there was somehow a agreement in place that this was going to occur the judge blocked it address these graves i'm sorry which point the judge should want them address the claims  that there was this promise of prince and power contract and somehow that that could be considered a false statement made by my clients to induce the outcome even if that's the case to find fraud you have to find that the other party in this case the appellant reasonably relied upon that say and counsel cites the abundance and case and the last two lines part of which says that if they have the means of knowledge of the facts reference that i cannot imagine the case while the appellant may have been somewhat educated and not quite as experience i cannot imagine a case where someone could not claim would be more difficult to say that they didn't have more access to information as has been observed the ohio judge spent twenty five pages worth of testimony going through explaining person sent the effect  consent giving for the opportunity to ask any questions asking her if there were any promises and when she said well they said i could see your thoroughly explained that and know they can change that and this isn't going to change your consent he absolutely provided her all the information all the opportunity to ask any question to find out whether it could be true or false i simply don't think you can find even if you were to accept that that statement and everything else so with that i would just if the court has any questions be happy to answer them but it's not believed that this were confined if there was any of use by judge wapner reaching his decision and it certainly was not against the m