he submits that this issue is capable of repetition as it applies to his case as is the issue of least restrictive alternative as far as collateral consequences are trial courts are often reluctant to even do anything about three six o two issues and also least restrictive issues rice and i would say almost every case that's heard in the traffic court and again i think trial judges are often reluctant to even question the proof in these cases so  as far as the actual issues this is an article six emergency perceiving her was right by his father to an assessment center a and voluntary admission reverted back to the pretoria ski c standard which lies in the petition and the petition frames the issues so that was fine however as part of the proceedings in a mental health case two medical certificates are asked so required and in this case it's not a case where we had a third certificate we could fall back on  this case we had to psychiatrists certificates and that was saw and both certificates of lads that he was subject to involuntary admission based on standard held says other than saying that the person is subject to impound three admission and have to spell out that they're subject to the imminent danger of harming themselves or others but the reason that they're subject to balance her aid mission is based on her i think should be based on the current profession one dash one one nine that that's really what we're talking about that's the statutory framework for it but i think i don't think you can divorce the certificates which are required if if there had not been an to certificate so if there had not  i timely psychiatric certificate filed that these proceedings would have gone nowhere or sort of on no where and i don't think you can pretty much everything that central or it gets directed to close those that are today because the state is decided that that's the most financially expedient way of dealing with the problems that are out there facilities he was just charged well before the ninety days so i i think i don't know i just think they could have considered that facility why he couldn't stay there i think his dad was a witness why didn't they even just ask him ok how can you help i mean his dad was certainly dealing with him and i think maybe there wasn't some other upturning i mean he he had lived with men and dealt with this problems and i just think they could have explained more and maybe hurt other alternatives especially in a community like like champagne where his father did testify that was not taking his medication is what treatment us more than just psychotically with the suicidal ideation and questioning about whether he could get people in the hospital and most folks i mean in other words if the medication would control that behavior that is not taking the those requirements well except that they may have gone to more than they needed to put in the medical certificate and what they included in the preprinted section of the form was incorrect based on what had happened first of all they don't need to state a state at all but if they do i don't think they're held to the same requirements of statute but even if they are that they meet the requirements i mean the example that you  you know a passer by or a critic potential patient could be i think yelling racial slurs to somebody because psychological harm all right that was underneath the old definition of dangerous conduct that's not what we have here we have a very specific factual recitation of what the physician is looking at the support his opinion as to why this person is subject to involuntary so if you look at that factual state scenario basically the guy's going to kill himself he meets the definition so we know he's not adopting a torso you see definition dangerous conduct which would make that inappropriate of setting a criteria for mission doesn't mean every time somebody uses that term if they go on to explain their use of that term in a manner consistent with what this court would require then their use of that term is appropriate your mother could not rise here practical question takes on the responsibility of it by using the medical profession about changes in the law regarding these types of things like a medical they won't they don't have the money it's a huge problem i've got to think eighty percent of the people that are homeless have mental issues and we're not addressing that issue as a state as a society i think that's a swear that has been the opinion of the court and has even got this court has even gone so far as to direct the production of checklists and  medical certificate that didn't make the pollution so the statute requires it it doesn't exist and annie annie leaving i have ever seen it's just part of the process it's a required part of the pleading so not mental health case and why is it wrong to expect just psychiatry's who's going to hold someone and commit them especially someone young like this why is it wrong to require them to at least know the proper statute i think most psychiatry us i think they consider it part of their responsibilities to know the law i mean they're not i don't mean that they're i really do think they attempt that i have questions all the time ones that i deal with on a routine basis maybe these proceedings to please use the proper form and i and i agree with you that everyone should take a part in that process and and really that's all he say asking the fairies are evident