outfit bring in the useless what was acquired by another outfit so this area of laws established but it hasn't been litigated very often it involves the issue of illinois d c s safety plans safety plans  to do not be with your children for a period of time during an investigation you know and it's been represented to these courts for years that these quote unquote safety plans are voluntary and the plaintiffs throughout the years of consistently claim that these agreements are not voluntary now this is the st case to ever become come before this court involving safety point in which it was refused and i refused the safety plan not on october  and eighteen and then what occurred after that was a series of retaliation interfere in an ongoing civil domestic relations case the minorities not to my correct though that when you did refuse it nothing happened right away you continue to have the children on that particular date that is correct your honor and in fact there was a well being check that it could later and which the responding officers wrote for the cook county sheriff's department so the children are fine and took no action so there was no dispute that mr bush i mean it's just clarify please i didn't see anything in your complaint that the children knew about the proposed safety plan or knew about defendant's attempt to get you to to agree to enter into the safety plan to say correct well actually both of the children were present and my actually right here in mind would be when the conversation was occurring a few feet away from me in my kitchen plus so the children were there but at that time the church of the seven and the other one was three so make it really had no idea what was going on so that a complaint has the transcript in which what concrete things happened as a result of orders of state court yes they thank you for that you're out of well st of three this is a procedural due process claim which in fact the act of asking for a safety plan not and subsequent due process rights were in french by that practice in which in that case the parties agree now i get what it is the court is indicating in this case i do not agree but what they did after that is it took how we could give you relief without overriding orders of the state court well that's that's that's excellent question because st of all the urgency order protection was was a temporary violation the other part of the procedural due process violation is that the state did and i think imagine i just i just want to clarify so it's not the final judgment necessarily that was ultimately reversed and sent back on but the or has a question for you i'm sorry no problem did you want to finish your thought no no sir ok can i can i tell you how i read in essence your allegations and you can just tell me whether i or i have interpreted them correctly or not  if you look for example in paragraph one hundred and forty seven of the complaint you filed in federal court ok the very last the very last portion of that what you're effectively saying as i read it is touched off a series of events that have that then occurred over the course of eight months and in other places you say your continuing to this day have violated your federal your federal constitutional rights your right to procedural due process and substantive due process yes or is that a fair summary if that is actually an extraordinarily fair summary of what occurred and i'm relying on  and procedural due process protections and when when the state injected itself in the domestic relations wrote e mails to the opposing counsel and made prejudicial recommendations that there should be supervised parenting time in a counseling session or you know  order town salie which ended up not being admissible under the state marriage and dissolution of marriage act so i went to a counseling session to get my parenting time back and i couldn't use that session because under the marriage act that  it was confidential and privilege and couldn't be used in any matter in litigation so they absolutely set up a chain of events across their jurisdictional boundaries into a civil case in which they have no no jurisdiction for investigating an allegation that was two  judgment and then they said well it's a final judgment but what the appellate court should have basically it just made a mistake you click or are exceeding the circuit court and it should've fully decided the issue of parenting time rather than entering essentially a y on the alternative basis that the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction it's hard to place you seem to on almost concede but not totally that younger doesn't apply here is that a fair reading of your briefs at and on and on it's a private dispute between two parties now if you're going to start going into the weeds of abstention doctrines there are other abstention doctrines that address more specifically comprehensive state schemes of regulation whether you're thinking of burford or whether you're colorado river but nobody's arguing anything about that in this case yes your honor i recognize it's not a perfect fit under sprint and the fact you set out there i would note that degree i have to say on think it may not be the best fit for the domestic relations exception either so there we have the supreme court's on going brown case but this is the claim as brought by the plaintiffs is a federal constitutional claim and yes it will have an indirect impact on the domestic relations case but that's it's not going to create custody it's going to result in you know dissolved case cited in our brief this court held that a federal due process claim premised on the notion that a custody order deprive the plaintiff of due process was barred by the domestic relations exception in allen this court held that a federal federal constitutional claims for exception that was a claim that a guardian provided false information to the probate judge which led a probate judge to entering an order that violated the plaintiff's due process rights very similar to what we have here today as mr bush recognized in his opening comments he has recognized that the state courts order is what caused the due process violation here and as noted in the complaint that is what the complaint says of well i would also point out that on page twenty four dollars of claims as memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss you expressly states that quote plain just familial rights claim does not rest on defendant's failed unlawful attempt to enter a safety plan so it's not defend its conduct independent of the court's order mr bush is challenging here he is challenging the court's order itself and that's what sets this case firmly within the bounds of the domestic relations  argues although he didn't just now but he spent a lot of time briefs arguing that actually the root cause of the problem is the illinois statute that forbids people from using anything that was said in a counseling because at base mr smith had no role in enforcing that statute g c s was not a party to the underlying domestic relations proceedings in plaintiff's own allegations in the complaint and in their brief their statements in the brief made clear the state domestic relations court could still raise objective objections under six or seven dollars d and exclude evidence under that statute respectively in future proceedings if the injunction with something mind you c f s which again is not a party to those would think the district court correctly relied on this court's decision holcombe where there was in fact a more direct connection between the indiana officials and involved with the name change process in indiana and that then mr mr smith connection to section six hundred and seven point six years and i'd also like to point out with respect to mr bush's arguments that a lack of standing would deprive him of a forum in which he could challenge the statute that's incorrect he could of course challenge the application of the statute in the context of his state domestic relations proceedings you could argue on appeal in fact in his brief he says that you know you want to appeal that the statute was unconstitutionally applied to him and he was depriving a fair judgment all right thank you mr bush your time expired but i'll give you a minute oh you're on it just briefly on the issue of younger and the issue of whether younger applies to private domestic relations proceedings was completely misrepresents the holding in which this was it was the st time that i'm aware that this court cited sprint in a holding that younger does not apply to in that case a pretend to be case so so that the  unpublished reverses called case from two thousand supports and supports this in the white house case that was a in that case there was an order entered the park a missouri resident from having parenting time with his children in illinois and he sought to change the custody order