only has to those sex offenders were present in the park with out their children in recognition of the fundamental liberty that a parent has checked his truck as acknowledged in reserve in the year two thousand by the state legislature in then the civically states that it is unlawful for a child sex offender to knowingly be present in and you of our bill unless the offender is parent or guardian person under eighteen years of age parents were allowed to be present with their children reply i think the legislators believe and the fundamental right that a person has to be present with their child to protect one's trying to participate in the  against your argument that is us reading an exemption into nine dollars that's not there and also the fact that nine dollars it contains an exclusion for the romeo and juliet situation but anything that's not explored it is there by including well and  in the groups there was a discussion of these general rules and the notion that it's not stated in every single rule there is a general rule that it doesn't apply or that rule but the differences here  as a nurse and but there was an exemption and they didn't lose the term that is a different provision from the instant provision where it's not as if certain sex offenders are excluded from this rule sir john says but the group of parents it is stated are not acting unlawfully if they are friends with a cop for that reason the fact that one of these provisions is a misdemeanor and one his  fellow is also in consequence because the language of the access the parent is not active so that distinctions well doesn't against us in terms of and it made sense that mere this statute these statutes though will with someone who is in language can read harmoniously so as to affect the legislative intent and avoid any sort of search and that is what brings us here today if there are any further question that if you are in the presence of your own child so it's not under nine dollars it's not unlawful to be in the park as a sex offender can approach someone as long as a child as long as you're with your child that's right i'm and similarly defendant suggests that there is a fundamental right to go to a public par to control the care custody of his or her child it doesn't mean he has a fundamental or she has a fundamental right to go to a park and that of course is evident from the fact that a town  went home and so the necessity defense wasn't well but in certain circumstances it might be and that's a totally separate issue than say you have a fundamental right to vote are any time for any reason as long as your and it was found that there wasn't a need to use this difference because it didn't apply since in this case there was no need for a total ban of sex offenders to specify that it would be ok different and it may be because of what i just alluded to that the legislature felt that there was no need that they were covering something different and it was already covered in my group a day and one simple it was not repealed in terms of a sudden to matter it was not gotten rid of it was moved from one section to another it was meant by the legislature to remain and to have him and you'll know that my point permit is he when did he look chris trial whether he considered it an emergency for his minor child to come home as it was getting dark or not i don't know how that by the skin doesn't just  get buried it in the interpretations that are being given if a parent is allowed to get his child and use the parents own judgment as to what's appropriate and when the child needs we don't know if the child simply went to the park to avoid his father and needed to come home for whatever reason it shouldn't require that a defendant when he's permitted by statute to enter into it are then also prove that there was some sort of the subsidy or urgency  in the state also talks about this court having addressed this issue of the time but it did and as q just heard pointed out it's a different question from being able to go into a bar and being able to go into a perhaps to enter into a bar there's also the case that says a parent has a fundamental constitutional right to enter into the school yeah the legislature which we rely upon to that is why you know labor can see the other side that they're wrong and in a way they're both wrong with what they see if it's limited to that but this world is not limited to just one view but one sack the statute as a whole must be read together and i don't mean to speak ill of the legislature because i really believe that these two read together complicated things they meant to and and what they meant to absolutely need to be covered but as i would have to earlier it's also possible that