eighty dash one because we are perceived on the original district court record i believe it's also included in the supplemental excerpts of record  i think this case is the one point that's important to address is the issue of standing i know that it was of concern to the district court and i believe we have addressed it sufficiently in our briefs but i just want to touch on  briefly on the assertion of lack of standing for the children is especially concerning that the district court would find that and make a dismissal of prejudice as to the children's claims the children have county of san diego would not be allowed to represent our minor children we would need to have an attorney for them so we made a motion to have it and a next friend appointed whether it be in this country or the attorney for the paternal relatives there also appellants and the district court rejected that and deny that motion which was the magistrate judge which was a concert by the district court judge and the concern is this the minor children should have their interests probably partly represented and if there was any you soon as to whether there was a conflict between ourselves of trying to relatives or miscounted representing the children that a minimum of the district court should have held a hearing asked for information and gone further to make sure that the children's interests were adequately protected because the claims were clearly stated in the complaint there's no doubt about that and also that the concern is it was a dismissal with pre interesting when you look at the report first report recommendation by magistrate judge in she recommends disability dismissal for all the different claims that she references it with the exception of the ones that we made that were later disposables summary judgment and the claims we're talking about are not minor issues the children were taken from their home then they were handed over to abusive and neglectful individuals by the state of washington department of social services that agency is supposed to be there to protect children to weaken family integrity keep families together if at all possible and instead they put them in the hands of people that they knew minor things and what happened to the children there has been no discipline to the people responsible for the placements where they've received promotions and in fact one of the key chases that encompasses not only the children's claims but also the social workers and statute of limitations was something that the district court bought into is because there was a misinterpretation of the second minute complaint in thai friends one example this reference in our brief is a fair face that was referenced early in the complain and so i think in the statute of limitations it's just an issue of misunderstanding the complaint and timeframes i don't believe the statute of limitations was exhausted and you also have a continuing violation stuffing because this is a period but of course there are cases where individuals may forgive and forget there's a balance and in the ordinary walk of life and on the surface it appears the legal system is trying to strike a balance also when it comes to giving judges giving social workers giving individuals who have to make difficult decisions the discretion to do what they believe is right in the time that they're in but at the same time that discretion can be abused it can be  you know they may adopt that in their own policies and doing things day to day but it's not it's not according to the law it's against the constitution both state and federal law i would say that the tide does seem to be changing when it comes to washington state dependency and terminations there are a lot of changes in the state statutes that have been me since the events took place that are contained in our complaint  for example the proceedings used to be closed when our state proceedings were going on now that they've opened them while in a limited capacity they are open there's also more restrictions on seizing children in the first place they give feed the state patrol involved much more but i don't think that that is enough to say ok well they're fixing it the legislatures addressing these problems you know let's leave it to the sadly it's snowing through the state of washington how bad the records that are the social health services have asked for lawsuits against them and liability for those children and adults all of the individuals in our society who are we were from the eighth circuit i think that's really a case to work early on points as the river fell the doctor and so i would say my answer would be to review that case rather than go into all the details for whatever state court judge might entertain their claims in the future but i would be barbara and also sound angry if i don't know whether the representation was american representation was that there was a motion made for  disposition of and certainly the court was i think absolutely correct in determining that under the miller case if there was a definite conflict of interest or clued in any possible representation even if you assume that the children had standing in this case which is another issue when we're looking at the nature of the claims that were being brought in each of the claims your work with respect to determination as i said for the children who are represented in those proceedings in fact this whole business about whether or not they could bring the children into federal district court as a plank just is that there should be a spot from being there because that was the same issue that was decided in the first federal district here or they were named as plaintiffs in the first federal district court case the issues in that case involved bothers me and i think it's a pleasure that you are is that they were not properly and the court because they were only in the court because the parents who have absolutely no legal right to bring them into the court were trying to make that happen your pro se or as their parents and to remedy that then what they did was they came back and filed and the court also said and the foreign relatives can be represented by you they need to have the whole maturity or they need to sign a complaint  that question now if i might get back to the air the issue of the social worker immunity or any and i would point out as well that the the social workers that we're talking about having been given from deciding to initiate that dependency proceedings to participating in the removals to accepting custody from the king county police officers and when they were seized initially involving themselves in the abuse investigation that was part of the first on have no i have not demonstrated how any of this violates any constitutional right and certainly any reasonable state officials acting under the dictate of state law are good reason to believe that their  and that would be peacefully he's and in theory there obviously because this all the way this came up there is no proffer by the state sort of showing and the officer at the this to the trial judge at the time remarked that barnard i think his name was i had in fact concealed or destroyed documents so my question is based on those allegations which are i think paragraphs one thirty nine one forty of the second amended complaint why why isn't there a point made out for state law for malicious prosecution attendant whatever disposition of might have been of the old prosecution case still is the cycling on of whether or not there is a malicious prosecution for the arrest that was affected and the officers who were the defendants in this defense council talked about all of the individual people doing particular part of their job i would like to call them to the court's attention the part of our investigation in particular in my investigation went to the fact that the legislature in washington would have been a big part of this lawsuit because i believe that that leads into the conspiracy claims that money because i know that those training sessions do happen and we were nearly as well as you do either will thank you any good that comes from me comes from the order of so i tried to argue the case with some objective of the of course it's difficult it's very easy to be subjective in the situation especially as a mother and and a wife i've tried to put out of my mind the callista me her indiscreet see that has been done to my family especially my children in order to do that there is research there's reflection and there has to be balance thought i recognize that but i can't conceal my concern over the seriousness of what is involved in this case on a consciousness many many issues to many many different more prevalent because i believe people are starting to speak out on this train a stand up when their rights are violated by social service agencies and those that work in concert with them with a b g l's or whether it's an issue of the system the course of itself actually read an article about this judge our con it was one back in nineteen eighty eight and he made a statement that i think all three of you to keep in mind as you describe this case he made a statement  about the independence of the judiciary separation from politics and he said because we are independent politics we are independent of public passion or prejudiced we must not be concerned about the public clamor about newspaper headlines we are