rules and one still action that would indicate what the meaning of the custody judgment is in those would be supreme court rule nine hundred the talks about expediting it involves the best interest determination so there those are my primary three basis for assuming before the court this afternoon that  about visitation and i'm hearing after hearing after hearing comment visitation was removed from the expedited duckett issue so we might have some ambiguity between the two  that because i was in it that it should be removed so i wrote some comments but to return to justice in the clearance question about support issues for instance in this particular order in this connects to the argument by the father in this case there this intention was to resume issue and there or that it doesn't the order in this case there are food reserves meanders one child support another one is medical contribution for medical expenses a third is future educational the mother had on file a petition for visitation she was at that time incarcerated and her counsel at the time and finally the motion addressed the court the trans sport and in this case they are to the best of my recollection the record is now a request by the father to exploit the past ability visitation she had a visitation court around file and to the best of my recollection in the reading of the record there was no request by the father that she be denied arguments about it but i think it doesn't discuss joint custody i think the circuits report is pretty clear she said while i would normally contemplate joint custody in a situation like this it is it doesn't make any sense senator trying to get to the conclusion because not only is she in and out of jail she's on bond which means that there will be things she'll have to answer for and me and i think we can get her then if she has to answer for me it's not successful it's going to be even think that it's practical to believe that mother of this coup would voice her opinions as to what happens with  this is a situation is it not where we need to look at what the trial court did in reaching its decision that is whether or not it took into account the best interests of the no question in what we've has been characterized as the notice of appeal in this case there is an allegation that she's been in custody that she's not been notified and made a court date on that doesn't have a copy of the order that she's referencing and she doesn't she doesn't believe the final order has been entered is there anything in this record that would indicate things were sent to her to indicate th did have she had all notices she had all the things related to the issues you would not trial counsel as i recall for trading through are there incidents in the record where the parties in front of the court talked about the report of the guardi appoint an attorney to represent this woman whose interests need to be protected this was in essence a modification of custody rights so technically the standard of proof that this trial court shouldn't be used if it had conducted a hearing would have been different that is w but that was prior to the petition filed for permanent and temporary custody and indeed wasn't a section of the statute cited the internet titian where we asked for permanent custody also just the and the other question appearance and about ninety days or close to ninety days had gone by does a transient have any obligation to spontaneous to appoint someone to represent her well i think the question of whether the court he has a duty soon aspire to to a point is different than the question of the care or the determinations or the basis for determination that the court must have in order to ensure an order i mean i'm asking those is period different issues and as i say this could be a different case from my but but i guess the other question though is did she actually happen petition for visitation pending and while there was a piece of paper there i know mechanic county has certain rules internal rules that things have to be called for hearing a certain period of time the court is a world court the trial court doesn't have to as pacifically identified but some how their record must support the conclusion that best interests were considered to be and to turn by the trial court and certainly with reference to the visitation issue it's our group position that there is nothing in this record that indicates any support the worth of best interest conclusion  mean i think we can argue for a long time about the custody because the day after my client's incarceration but for the best interests you know because there are four cases that talk about incarceration and whether or n showing that a close relationship existed and also very young children i'm saying under the age of six so that even if they embed a custodial parent their relationship might be something different this is so different in this the jail setting which whether it be in the state my home or at the local level is appropriate well i don't know that the cases are completely clear and  in front of it that makes that finding all of the serious and dangerous to the child something that's pretty clear we have a guardian here although not she was not appointed is the representative were presented in the room she referred there for a point is the attorney she was the guardian it doesn't include any other appointments to my knowledge reading the order so my question is in her supplement which are common letter she relates to her own practice of criminal law and she doesn't know the jail is a good place to actually have a physical visit not because of what happened between mother and son but because there are a lot of people there who are unhappy and he would have reason to come in contact with those persons you don't consider them in any way any sort of a fulfillment of the obligation you're talking about and signing understanding what the guardian reported and that supplementary