process mechanism to get out the th circuit has previously ruled the c w s c m s system meets the stigma chast so the bottom line here is what's the pl that he had to get out of khaki firms in these other cases they've already been up in front of the th circuit where the courts ruled they've met this statement but the plus had to be further test they're in the databases that's without argument there's nothing that says that they have any mechanism to get out of them there's no due process mechanism so now i go to claim that because somehow they were trying he was the one trying to foster a child with penny lane and that the baby got taken back three days later right right except that the four packed and the well for instructions for cedar ws is not retroactive there's nothing new california statute that says these people can go back four or and he did not avail himself of that hearing right that's the hearing through which he can really challenge the accuracy of the factual allegation so without taking advantage of that procedural mechanism khaki rules inconclusive student not get reported with not originally substantiate it so that takes care of mr rube saw but when he moved out of his house so that anna could adopt a child all of a sudden they the databases and retroactively did two thousand and nine but let me ok but since this can he still i know he was offered a khaki hearing when they put him in the database and he declined i mean to this state he has not had it is that correct to this date he has not had a cacti you're right after every lie why isn't it premature for if he has that khaki hearing available why isn't it premature for s he was put in it five years later your honor there is no provision in the penal code without express authority by the legislature to put somebody in a database five years later right let me let's go over to andy for a moment you allege that the county violated andy's right to privacy is there any evidence in the record that any sempre mation in seeing the on manifest life disseminated outside the proper promotion is an employer and other employees told him that she wasn't getting promoted because he's in these databases but at the same time the other is the new there are other instances of conduct where he's been told flat out by the school district he cannot go to his john and school is not permitted on the school grounds because he is in the database well it was that because at that time the substantiated allegation is we've got now a slippage in status and a switch in in terms of how he's described right so i'm looking for that concrete evidence beyond just speculation that provides the plus problem i think your honor this speculation can be resolved there we go to trial and we bring in witnesses that show still barred from attending his children's schools because nobody at the school district is going to write a memo that says like i've been caught but right here where i'm summary judgment right yes your honor all right now we have to deal with what's in front of us right that he is not permitted on the school grounds and according to the school it's because he's in the database they don't specify which database they just say he is in the database well if you believe the defendants that he's out of information has been corrected to be unfounded and they still maintain their position then i think you know you you have a much better argument for arguing material a question of fact that would preclude summary judgment but i didn't see anything like that in the barred from picking up his children after school he is barred from going to the school and it ending any function of his child's school he has been blacklisted for ever by this school and the school district because they want him he's in the database all we have is mr andrews declaration unless i call in the school people as witnesses they're not going to voluntarily write a declaration like that or did for the defendants who said something about he's not i don't know about any databases but i'm a lady clerk and i wasn't here at the time the allegations are eight court of competent jurisdiction rule twice that mr andy did not commit child to do flat out i mean let me ask you when i want to turn that's one thing you race for the st time and mr andy's appeal is supposed to be confidential which the government says and limited to certain agencies whatever is the county able to provide money laying an outside foster agency and that information from that database that impacted mr response foster certification penny lane has a contract with the county of los angeles your honor and before they place a child in a home there to contact the county and ask the county to  run a check in the c w s c m s database for an hit and in this case in the black to do that that is anyways so it wasn't discovered until after the fact but they were not given any information about the nature of the hit they were simply khaki and the whole and you know and then you make that allegation say where the government were going to help you can trust us we know how to keep confidential information and i guess the record indicates that there's a of policy allowing foster agencies like penny lane to obtain information from the county that is included in c w s e m s i was such a policy compliant with state requirements on the confidentiality of c w s c m s information is such a policy result in a negative impact on an individual's parenting rights as it appears to have with mr bruce saw in his case when he have a viable due process crying well i think  in this case as i said penny lane was not given specific information but they need to know if they're placing a child in their foster family agency if they're placing at county of los angeles to send the child even if i go i can't tell you anything but wink wink the kid could be dead if you laid them there i mean that you could are you saying that wouldn't violate engagement they weren't given any information but wink wink not exactly wink wink your honor but they do have a contract with go hypothetically let's assume hypothetically he loses here if he wants a khaki hearing now are you going to pull the rug out from under him or could he have a khaki hearing that is a great question and i have not actually looked into that your honor but i would certainly recommend that you be given a khaki hearing yeah but i would recommend that you put people in khaki double want and khaki and do it in a timely fashion and that didn't happen so how my spouse how am i supposed to feel better about that well i think that the county made every effort at the time your honor to offer mr ripstop a hearing even to the point of the m s j hearing judge i just i'm hearing waiver there i'm hearing that you're going to come back and say well hey you could have had one you didn't have one you kind of like someone that goes to trial you didn't want to take the offer that the prosecutor our producer your rolled the dice and now you're looking at a life sentence oh well so i'm that's what i'm hearing two things come out of your it's requested but i am not aware of what you're asking and as they started to say the door's been open for mr reeves for a long long time and he has chosen not to because he felt that that would not  unfounded and institutional like a lame reaches out what they still be told that there's a hit even if the allegation is unfounded always they be told that there's no hit and then i told that there's a been removed it would not have had an impact on him one thing i wanted to address quickly is that latest claim that the r and an a tooth fairy are reflected as child abusers in the database as i don't know if she's referring to c w m f r tacky but there's no evidence that either of them are in the khaki database today that i'm aware of the are was reportedly a victim in the child welfare database ms weisberg was given an additional two weeks after our hearing  provide additional evidence that they were harmed and the evidence she provided did not close that so i thought i would like to say that i believe praeger sins order was very well reasoned and as he stop james any matter what do you address to the chase here let's just say hypothetically and i'm only saying this hypothetically i don't want people to get all you know because we haven't conference on this case anything there's no decision having a lot of confidence in the county here and i'm going to say that because they couldn't get people in khaki and they should have been in khaki and they just don't seem to be able to to do that so what if someone like ok mr n d if ok so he professionals but what about if it turns out that that people you're saying this is a confidential base and that it wouldn't come out that people in the count start giving out information and they shouldn't people planet earth and future i mean i don't see how that county should be even if you count if you were to prevail on best i don't see how you should be shielded from certain county behavior that when added to whites why you would prevail here well if i understand your honor's question you're talking about why dissemination or improper dissemination of information violation of confidentiality provisions pertaining to juvenile court records and to c f s records could give rise to a privacy violation claim but it's not necessarily a due process claim because in the case of mr any here he still have to or certainly did not cite mr and his declaration when he's explicitly said that since mr and he was removed from khaki he has not been told that he cannot go to his daughter's school and that's based off of his daughter's school but he was told one time by the elementary school principal that he couldn't go to school and i was one proceedings the juvenile court proceedings were pending and ongoing and he can't show and this is an important point he really can't show any injury sting plus injury that's ascertainable not only to a c w a c m s but to unfounded allegations of abuse contained therein and so he hasn't in the past twenty years tried to work with children or volunteer with children or tried to volunteer as children it's daughter's  is he still here when he sat and what i think you should think about responding to when you come back he said that that there was no declaration and that this record from mr andy that you had referenced in your state and that judge costner never gagged and that mr and days declaration his deposition testimony contradicted what you're saying about his being not allowed on the school grounds argument for the st time on appeal and she took exception with that characterization and said she didn't use the word go between her but she had made this argument previously do you want to respond to that but i would just briefly say as we laid out in the brief this is an entirely new claim and theory of constitutional violation under the th amendment which has never been mentioned since this case has been filed back in two thousand and sixteen it's clearly a new claim that  a desperate attempt to try to save this trendies action here and it's simply a waiver to the people considered by this court and even if you do consider it there is no basis in this record or in the arguments from the law to classify c w s c m s as a bill of attainder strength isn't punished by simply being in the system with unfounded allegations there's no there's no ask you some more questions about that that i want what beneficial to step back and understand and as you know us c m s is a very important investigatory tool for child welfare a social workers it's to help them have all the facts when they get referrals of cases have all the facts and contacts to be able to do their jobs to ensure that children don't fall through the cracks and they need to be able to understand if there are unfounded allegations that can provide some context and there are investigations going forward and doesn't necessarily mean that someone is more suspicious it can actually exonerate someone if you know the false reports of being provided by a reporter against a certain individual if you get another false report from that same individual then you have that context to be able to go into the investigation with your eyes open and this is exactly what humphries stated was allowed and that the government interest was recognized was that caseworkers and law enforcement agencies need to be able to have all the bits and pieces of information in order to do their jobs to ensure  r safety all right so that camera obviously was passed to protect children recognizing that they're vulnerable and that they want they want social services too if they if someone calls in they want them to look into it to make sure that those that i mean i think it's safe to say that most children could not report abuse themselves or would not because they're financially dependent on the environment that they're living in and so that camera has a definite i think legislative purpose of making sure that social services is doing their job and that the st time we find a dead child it isn't because people should have been calling in and saying something or no one was paying any attention to it but that things said if if but having that information if if you can show that the government has that there's a basic reason to have a system and that the government has good reasons for wanting to do it if every time they got a call on someone is appellant asking for at that point any that any investigation that goes on there should be some sort of hearing and how many calls do you get or how does that work i mean and to get to your honor's prior question about the burden it would be extremely burdensome especially when you balance it against the minimal liberty interest that is implicated by having an unfounded non statement icing allegation of abuse s there's millions of referrals and each referral requires notice and an opportunity to be heard here and  so if in fact that and that if in fact county officials were not respecting the confidentiality of that and maybe perhaps they had they had some sort of dispute with a particular parent and they were calling the skull and giving information that they shouldn't get i think that the law would say there still should be on mechanism so that they would be able to shout statement class there wouldn't be that definitely seems to get closer honor that's correct there were two allegations of abuse one in two thousand and fourteen and one in two thousand and fifteen both were subject to juvenile court proceedings ultimately in two thousand and fifteen the juvenile court dismissed the abuse allegations against mr andy he was still remaining on khaki but he did have to khaki grievance hearing mechanism the baleful to him to challenge about not only is inclusion in khaki but also the underlying allegations that were contained in c tell us humans aren't those been exonerated and anyone reviewing the file and that's what humphrys was worried about was anybody looking up the information would label someone as a child abuser and anyone looking at the file and knowing that a court dismissed the allegations against him with  andy as a child you know he was exonerated then there is no reason to maintain it and our position is that there is still of very important governmental interest in terms of investigatory in child protection purposes as isis stated before we want social workers to have all the information when they're when they get into a referral and see thank you i think i'm weak on ever with the government so i'm going to confidential but it's judged in castillo the court outlined all of the exceptions to a twenty seven of the welfare institutions and that's how the county is giving all page form and they get access to it these people who are in these databases as alleged perpetrators it doesn't matter if you go to a subsequent forty pages over different trials to clear his name and did so there's no reason for them to leave him in this database and deny him access to was there is no reason to have unfounded allegations in this database the same way they cleaned out well i i can i can sort of see you know i'm kind of thinking outside the box here but you know children that are victims of the many time say it didn't happen right and something could be on founding or it could be not substantiated and then years later and i'm watching if you're watching the development of things than they get to the age of majority and maybe the statute hasn't run and they're not afraid of the person anymore and they come out and they say you know i really was then it was way worse than ever sad but i was afraid that it would come down to so if you had someone a database that say had life five unfounded complaints and then later you have someone come up and say you know i actually lied and i didn't report it i was a kid and i was afraid to say it defense the defense would say well you never reported it and then the prosecutor would say well it was reported but it was found to be unfounded and the person with and say well i was afraid to say more and you know these things have a way of there there are certain things that young children aren't necessarily always reliable and part of being reliable might mean that they might deny something that might or they say happened and or any or they can't qualify as a witness or you can't figure out what happened now i think that people went i think they if if you were a social worker and you found that someone had had lived kept i mean and different households and they're kept having complaints and they were unfounded the social worker that got that might want to go back and talk to someone that was in the prior house and make sure that they weren't afraid to say something i understand the court's concerns but i also maintain that number one you can't why does the department of children's services keep writing to the dependency court that anna is an abused child abuser when there's no evidence of it all they're doing is using it as a stor that's all they're doing to shut people up from complaining that they're in these database the same thing is outlook about the for mr and q trials prove him innocent but right now counsel for the county will tell you she's in the databases as an alleged perpetrator what's scarier than being an alleged perpetrator that's his designation in the database at the end of database there and i have no idea they've never submitted any evidence to me that shows he's been theirs they admitted he's in the database as an alleged perpetrator but more importantly if the court looks at the e mail notification that was sent from penny lane by the county of los angeles it clearly says that once you're in this database you are this case screams for justice for people wrongly included in databases and i asked the court to look at the supplemental looked already is that i have submitted having to do with other examples of other government