qualified immunity was conferred to them based on the court the trial court nd trial court finding it reasonable suspicion existed at the time of the children's removed also going forward against going of child investigation cases or dependency cases that are corrupted by the perjury we're not attacking those we appeal successfully every single one of those which we are going right counsel counsel women to prevail on what you're arguing the federal court would have to find that there was perjury in fabrication of that evidence right on the record that's very clear your honor there's a state statute in arkansas or so i should get summary judgment on that i'm find that it would this committed perjury that was not found by the state court right and and that's what you're that's what you're arguing not my question was give me a federal court precedent that well your honor that's not what i'm arguing we're seventy nine case the facts of that case are practically night and day that this and that case the perjury that took place was during a deposition it was never submitted to the court the judge never saw it the jury never saw it so the perjury that was alleged to take place in that case did not impact the outcome of that proceeding whatsoever in this case we ducked perjury that direct testimony questioning by the judge and  investigators was on the stand correct ok it in this case there's so much more than that investigator finnigan did perjured herself on the stand the court did rely upon it however there were also affidavits were sworn out  a lie claim for some other reason i might miss interpret your answer here the judge they were it's really hard to separate the fabrication of evidence from the perjury because the fabricated evidence much of it was simply the testimony that there were not schemes in the home they didn't actually fabricate a notch schemes so they're fair getting circumstances that were designed to give the court pause and sending the children back home for them that the jury just sees they were kept for six months and the the absolute absence of any physical evidence or any real corroborating evidence when when the investigators were at that house for five hours if there was probable cause even for argument's sake let's say they had probable cause on the allegations after five hours having thirty people stormed the house and finding absolutely nothing at some point that that probable cause if it exists is going to lessen to the point that in this case it just simply  what to other but what her two older siblings and two neighbors had already reported well that's that's not entirely accurate judge st if the flood of risk was not reasonable if you look at the totality of the circumstances it was it was a band that had some tense in the end but you know known boxes in that it was ten to twelve degrees and you're talking about a family with seven children or seventy three year old father in a correct wife are not going to sleep and attempts i mean it's a possibility is it plausible it is that it's not reasonable in light of all facts so in flight risk if there were no other allegations or no other evidence for the rest of it there's you know in america we're still innocent till proven guilty if they wanted to go somewhere they certainly had every right to do so now we're talking about reasonable suspicion to take custody of children reasonable suspicion of of imminent harm or need for medical and further in medical investigation right now we're not talking about we're not talking about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so back to yes or correct all reasonable suspicion an issue of fact or l in this case reasonable suspicion is is an issue of fact what case of one case what a circuit case supports that or supreme court that's an issue of fact yes i don't have one  thank you for that but the law really is just the law it doesn't mean much until a certain sense the citic set of facts are applied to it and when the certain specific set of facts of this case are applied the law no reasonable competent investigator could straight faced say that that there was reasonable suspicion we can concoct it and then we can come to an outcome based decision in nearly any case but that the question in this case is what did they know and when did they know it before the children were seized and what they knew is that there was a complete absence of any real corroborating evidence or physical evidence to support these fantastic in numerous allegations  were simply that ass beatings or if it were simply that there's a chemical in the home and there were no physical evidence that would be more reasonable then if you had bruising striking burning poisoning  nutritional neglect education that there were so many allegations and not a single one of them had any physical evidence to back it up or real corroboration and i say real corroboration because the both the state and the candy ha hung on the on the fact that when miss finnegan it finally interviewed the two oldest children that the home that they corroborated the initial allegations well those initial allegations started with jonathan stanley and i knew that basically the original complainants were merely a messenger for john what about what about the advice from the children's hospital pediatrician about their testimony and that the district court weighed in deciding the reasonable suspicion i don't care what came along later in the court proceedings if there were symptoms judge then yes there need to be but they brought a doctor with the seizure of the children was premeditated if you look at the the affidavit for search warrant sergeant wright even admit investigation and they intend to remove the children to be examined by a medical doctor there with the removal of the children was predestined and predisposed to darkness they brought their own doctor there brought the doctor examined the children and couldn't find anything wrong so quite because you're the complaint in the briefings most of them together but i'm not so sure that they are smart people so to speak so the th amendment applies mostly to the children in there in that the children have a right to be free from unreasonable seizure of dismissed all of the claims deceptive asserted against major statement on a twelve b six mission to dismiss because the complaint they had no fact that with a clearly established constitutional violation against major state the district court also dismissed all of the claims against kathy and again but won the claim based on the removal of the children that decision was based on law enforcement's decision to exercise a temporary protective custody hold on  january th two thousand and fifteen while finnegan was at the stanley home conducting a child maltreatment investigation concurrently with garland county law enforcement who were there executing a search warrant looking over the m m s chemical that were was allegedly harming the on that issue and you if you insist on arguing again your brief citing the same pages that we referenced in the st opinion move yes your honor there was reasonable suspicion to support sergeant wright's decision based on not one but two different children two children were interviewed at the home on you right well two thousand and fifteen both jonathan and then his younger sister the eldest sister living in the home both of them were interviewed at the home that night they both provided and opened the van and looked and found the van packed with tents and pockets full of belongings just like the children said they were so thin again recently that the family was a flight risk and that is one of the health and safety factors under the top totality of the circumstances had to be considered after finding and interviewed the two children and found the van packed she went in shared her findings the sergeant right both of the children said the m m s themes burned their noses and burned their throats they also salman's don't dispute it then disputed that sergeant wright believed the kids in fact they both testified in their deposition that they still believe the kids and if they had to do it all over again they really would go back and make the same decisions because they at a hole in it and that's exactly what was reported by the original complainants as set forth in the probable cause affidavit and that's what the kids said to honest and then they in fact found the bottle of m m s in the fridge and then they were more bottles of m correctly decided that the totality of the facts that are derived at the time of his removal order was objectively reasonable those facts consisted of initial complaints and on site interview with the two older stanley children at home which included very importantly the fears that the their fears that if they were not removed by d h in a state police or guard county sheriff's department their parents would flee with them and or seriously harm him or marks the presence of him immense in the refrigerator and the bathroom in the strong recommendation of investigator finnegan who would who had personally interviewed the two children recommendation of deputy lawrence who personally interviewed these two children who was also told that they were scared of a flight risk most importantly perhaps the recommendation  clear he recommended that they be independently examined in an adequate medical facility the staley's had never sent their children to a doctor their entire life none of the seven children had ever saying a doctor until they were saying that night by the e m t dr kennedy they were taken the next day darkness all children's hospital but i've been to that point physicians worse or a mystery to this family and dr kennedy was concerned about that he said that he just because we don't find anything and that in the end bill and you know what little testing we can do they need to be seen by physician so in spite of all of those facts stanley's ar he said well i don't find anything but they did mention that and i and staley's are also critical of the failure to interview the five youngest children but those two facts in context with what he otherwise and who are insufficient eighty three years hence wright was convicted on a guilty plea that the property but what whether there is reasonable suspicion of child abuse must be determined by the totality of the circumstances at the time of the removal of reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch but it's less than probable cause misspeaking a probable cause garland county juvenile court held a hearing seventy two hours hands in which consideration of all the facts known to the court affirm removal of the children in fact the order stated that immediate removal that the the order family that immediate removal of the children was in their best interests and it was necessary to protect their health  that nothing is at the scene of the removal of the children it doesn't well i would just say it doesn't anything that exists that does not affect reasonable suspicion of child abuse on the night of january th two thousand fifteen and that is the that is the point at which the district court correctly determine this that that their qualified immunity issue and you must be resolved so what happened consistently failed in favor of the removal well the children it's a matter of fact the courts order in march in it up in a consent order where the stanleys agreed to continued separation with their children court proceeding i'm led to believe that it does this is a solid summary judgment record for the staley's to be attacking here there's no real argument made anywhere that deputy larger threat time qualified immunity either even though it didn't was specifically mentioned in the district court order there are simply no negative facts as to either rising out of the january th search and seizure in considering qualified immunity courts judge the actions and decisions not the moral character of the actor yanker could be a moral leper and be entitled to qualified immunity if his for her actions or decisions at the moment of impact were objectively reasonable qualified immunity because he ignored too many facts which should reasonably alert him to suspicion of child abuse here right had ample facts he had a duty to act he acted with a duty to in filing and presented no facts at summary judgment or here which would cause me merciful concerning official capacity liability the sheriff was an involved in all terms there were no errors on january  when dr kennedy at the scene said it it to be safe he would reckon an independent examination by physician and in facilities that are suitable to test he didn't say that these children need to go right now  that why did the investigators completely ignore the evidence that came out from those the very the dr the very next day said that he questioned jonathan about symptoms and and abuse sexual and physical and in his response was negative to all of them there were open ended questions that is exactly the opposite of what jonathan told investigators the night before and again four years later had never even seen that doctor for the course of the investigation if that doesn't shock the conscience there is nothing illegal about the presence of and then there is no danger to any exposure to m m s in any of the documents that the federal government has put out by the f b i i really think other than ingestion of the m m s there's been no evidence in fact the evidence was to the opposite even jonathan in the tortilla when they were questioned at the home during that and our search said that their father did not force them to drink and then that's all of the allegations were not substantiated by any physical or real rights and our th amendment rights to fundamental liberty interests if they give weight to that small amount of evidence that's that's not even really in the neighborhood of some credible evidence other than the opinion of that investigator that they do believe the child and in the dangers it's real it's not one out of proportion because they're telling you here even though they know what was wrong finnegan sessions quit doing this because she didn't want to get hurt we did that on the same thing she sa look if this happened again with the same circumstances i would remove the children again and that's the danger there's there's there is no way to protect families if they're going to going to child abuse investigations with that kind of