were sufficient to make service ineffective is still something we would disagree with based on that you agreed that the names were incorrect in the publication or the if there was an extra letter the first the mother's first name was correct in both publications and that the father there's evidence in the integrated assessment that the father knew her by her first name not a last name went on their urine or he was asked when when he came to court for the paternity test after he had been appointed an attorney in june of two thousand and fourteen he asked why he was there and his appointed attorney said well you're here for a paternity test and he said well you're kidding who's the mother and the attorney said bill do you know a chevelle and he said and according to the integrated says when his answer was well yeah but i hadn't seen her in years so she didn't know her by her first name we don't know if he knew the last but in any case your honor they had a rather  always something that has been interpreted strictly because it's the last method of service it's the least you know effective in terms of getting to the person before the court and has always been strictly construed publication notice it's interesting on a rule look at all the cases including the cases that the fathers attorney has cited there isn't always about of language about strictly constraining requirements for publication when you look at the cases that seems to primarily pertain to mu during a diligent search we're not going to the courts have said we're not going to let you get away with doing it oh ok then in this case it publication had the correct name and the father really only knew her by her first name that dad would have never really believed it would have some memory i don't know correct codes which do often specified properties have to be identified specifically trust accounts have to be identified very accurately we've cited case line are filing said you know the names you know intermission was off well really off in this case because you had not only the miners first name on but you continually and i'm not seeing you but the mother's name was continually supposed to interpret the notice of appeal liberally yes you could say that however here and there where it's where it's an error of substance and not  can't just interpret a notice of appeal as meaning anything i mean there's a supreme court case for example way that's vanishing mowbray this comes out the course is with the late filing  ahead i'm sorry i don't mean to go to it's actually not even true sticks her argument is not about time we are not claiming that he could not have chosen to state on the notice of appeal that was filed in two thousand and sixteen he could have said i am appealing adjudication that was entered in two thousand and seven and disposition that was entered in two thousand and eight and the two thousand and eight disposition orders were fine and appearing in two thousand and eight they were a completely separate final an appeal joint venture with an agent and then a few months later a final judgment for a money judgment ninety thousand dollars for final accounting was entered and i would notice of appeal only the final judgment with right at any point in the trial court will your honor he was represented by an attorney who is representing but i don't i don't remember her and correct me if i'm lying there was any allegation that he even sat i'm not ready for th i you know why just why have some contact with him he was never looking to be a parent back you're you're right you're basically because he was in prison he was in prison he testified himself at the best interests hearing that he was happy that this child was really such good trust your parents were taking such good care of him he said he received well at night knowing that this child was in a good foster home with people taking good care of them and his primary interest was in being able to maybe you know get to know jim are you at a later point but he himself said i realize i'm in prison i can't take care of him or any of my other children visit the juvenile plea new but not that they actually allows parent who has to get his or her rights terminated to come in some time later in the actually ask for the court the designated notice of appeal and i thought that was the case you were really relying on for purposes indicating to us that he can challenge the order at this point correct that is correct because it was a a final judgment the jury case and disposition more a final judgment so that's correct the supreme court said in that case that that the first district this court no time limitation if it's void the requirements of due diligence meritorious defense all of those fall by the wayside if the orders for it and the appropriate place to bring that would be in the juvenile court actually if it brought anywhere so i don't know that there's any real fear ears but that's not something we're right but it is it's possible just like the statute allows for parents rights have been terminated  subsequently petition the court to vacate the order terminating those parental rights this is a parent who has argued on appeal or actually the record indicates in the crown court that he really wasn't  contesting the fact that this child belonged in a stable home where he had been for how many years that's crazy thing it is his status we're he was going to be was already in it's e he well he was born in may of two thousand and seven so he he has been awarded the torch since the fall of two thousand and eight he's been in this particular foster home since december of two thousand and twelve so going on for on a half years he wants to be adapted in the home to foster parents want to adopt him and this situation of uncertainty with the adoption is it is something that he wonders about there's brief was fourth attorney waiver we did not it is true use the term blanchard's that there is an argument in there i believe it's at page thirty four of our brief history that essentially said the father had a very long time during the terminations and of rights proceedings to raise this issue and he did not raise it and he had every chance unlike the defendant in the  request to the court and the branches the issue is to recall that the case did this case then when in two thousand and eight the father was brought into the case in two thousand and fourteen he sat on this argument for two years how can you say that the orders that the juvenile court answered in two thousand and seven two thousand eight hundred you argue that those were not orders that were what's the terminology called into question once the terminations order was it that those were not steps leading up to the term how can you how can you argue  progression the petition for judy cation of words that was filed in two thousand and seven did not ask for the terminations crandell rights and say first we have to do adjudication then we have to do disposition then we'll get to the real goal here which is assume parental rights it wasn't clear until february of two thousand and fourteen when the term a nation for crandell terminations rental rights petition was filed but that was going to be the goal that the up petition alleged that the child should be made a ward of the court based on both the father and mother that the lack of whatever i don't know the actual basis but the father was named in th terminate parental rights without having a previous disposition and education of the one of the parents beginning with that we have to hear right well you know under the third was a substantial muslim not substantial compliance with the juvenile order and a bad fall i would ask that the court remember this is a child protection case where the main group of all proceedings  i think the mood in the majority of the cases where they talk about strict compliance have to do with making sure that a diligent search is done we're not going to just let somebody as it as in the d'arcy opinion  and then it turns out a different division had been it had actually made contact with him of the states so there was no diligent search down there they're the courts tend to be very strict on getting the diligen search that we're not just going to have a pro forma thing but also many of those cases arise under the tax code where there is a specific provision in the tax code for various kinds that say strict compliance is necessary here there's no such provision in the juvenile court that that's to my knowledge and in fact section one desk two says that the act is to be construed the liberal change its purposes and policy and one of the main goals of the juvenile for death is to achieve the child's best interest i'm not saying that means any old thing goes as far as publication go spot where it's a question would rise the spelling of a name that frankly this wasn't i asked the court to recall this was not the father's name that was misspelled this was someone else's name state that when there are orders that are not necessarily procedural steps leading up to the judgment that the court is actually reviewing on appeal that the court it it's is it inaccurate but all these decisions that say we don't have jurisdiction to review these early recorders because they were not procedural steps leading up to the actual shot was it state just as it is today so let me ask you this the father has not argued the merits of the terminator's he has essentially conceded that he thinks it's in the best interest of the child through all the child to be placed with the family he has been with now for a number of years how can you possibly say that the doctrine of liberties should not apply in this case when the responded father is basically saying he fixes the stability of the child especially in light of the fact that he possibly has another remedy under fourteen zero one he has a remedy to petition the courts later under the juvenile court act to vacate the determination of his parental rights are we acting in the best interests by not going along or at least agreeing with the around in circles up yet but the you know the initial op did the fact of the matter is that this child this this person never even knew he had this child for years even though he was familiar with the mother they talked on the phone texted any got together with her hooked up with her something like yeah but the question here is is that right now ok rw delaying we are dealing the best interests so i guess can you how can you say that the doctor it shouldn't be applied in this case to send this back to the juvenile  he has lived with the children for a period of time and then he when the mother moved away the last contact he was in and out of mental health facilities there was certainly a question of whether or not that father would be able to hear it yet the supreme court said we are really bothered by the fact that when the state had him mation to  meditating the father they knew a father was in fact one division of the state's attorney's office and actually talked to the father and yet another division was saying we don't know if their loved haitian they said they were so bothered by  the findings of fact that were included in that decision really established that there were problems with the father's so willingness to to parent and ability to parent but this supreme court was so bothered by the fact that when the for years is that certain who the fathers and i don't think she was in any way being disingenuous or not candid with the court i think she started to develop an idea that there were two men at some point who could have been the op so i'm not questioning her heard anything in terms of her ability to recall or place before the court the name of the father and at some point she did and she said it's got to be one of these two men so she was able to finally pinpoint it all right and so then he said actually the test is done he is the father he's in the court he's before the court there's a terminations perceiving going on that you have a father who is not aware that the one time that he had relations sexual relations with the mother in this case that they actually resulted in the birth of the child and he wasn't even sure what her last name was sal we have a situation that's not really uncommon and off it it crosses all lines of you know it doesn't really have anything to do with situation like this where we're getting interest the best interests of the child is really important and subtle should we go along with the guardian and say that the the method of the service was substantially complied with here that we shouldn't be tied to with the strict requirements of publication because we're talking about the life of a china and i was it wasn't enough that when they got the name wrong when we know that he it probably wouldn't have made a difference in terms of the father knowing that this was his child so should we go with the substantial compliance or should we get near to the cases that have you know suggested publication dates the last it's the last way we go and we strictly comply there but here we've got it kind of a different situation given that it's still ok the message is you don't have to try too hard to get public and and probably you know it in all cases where it should be required is in the termination of family placement and then the family member got arrested i think so but ever since then he's made this a more stable environment that he would write a book and so this why there is a slippery slope right however i haven't found a single case and neither has councils cited a single case where a name misspelling by one letter achieve the purposes of the juvenile court act which is namely the best interest of the child and to the extent that i think about is whether the service we are discussing whether the surface provisions of the juvenile by one letter and this court held that that invalidated the summons that really read that opinion and says right the summons was not valid because this was a trust account it was a number that says been caused by by the lack of the father's failure to notify this issue when he could have nearly two years ago has truly caused time to change right