the underlying case in this matter is about bringing the child's voice into the courtroom in the family law matter this appeal really is about the ultimate effect on lawyers and the larger picture about how they will bring that voice in the courtroom as an advocate ruling supports our theory of liability you know assist in using their logic would be to look at whether or not the advocate was acting in a judicial role and we believe that the best test of that is another subset of questions that the court asked about whether or not the attorneys are acting as an advocate or not advocate and i think the statute which appointed the attorney in this case is really just positive the words the operative words of that statute under actually two of them in the family code from what the child wants well to some degree and i think there's a i think the difference in the important factor to look at is you can't look at the best interest of something totally separate and apart from the child the attorney is responsible for bringing that child's voice and what is important to that child and as an advocate and i think that's i hope i've addressed that the courts concern there is a that is it can't be totally separate and apart and i think it's a factor it is a factor correct was the fact not the suspect right and under thirty one fifty one and i think this brings directly to the court's point it's not always a charge with responsibility bringing that the best interest but to present facts the words are to may introduce and examine witnesses to present arguments to the court to participate to the degree necessary to represent the child adequately and i think that is precisely what this attorney should have been doing and why i was charged with doing and why there should be liability these are not neutral terms these are go investigate and bring all facts forward these are advocate for the client as you would any other person that you are representing in a courtroom it also is not an issue  especially expertise of minors attorney doesn't have special training it's just an attorney brought in to marshal information and to argue for that child's interests also the case very clearly  excludes in this particular situation the potential that she was a guardian ad litum the marriage of floyd is judge white pointed out excludes that possibility and the guardian ad litum is really a person who comes into the court representing that interest at least in the california courts we have a juvenile court and this is a distinction is very important because it comes up in miers the case like howard states as the reason why attorney to represent children tell to these cases should be immune that's a trial protection matter it's very different the point that the attorney would be appointed by the judge and something california that can be either by request of any of the parties or by the judge on his own motion or her own motion so think totally separate from their role as an advocate and what we see is that in the family court the attorney for the minor actually becomes in most cases the person who is an meyers i don't think this is going to be something which will deter attorneys from representing children primarily because this is a very lucrative point not only of do they get a situation where they can collect from t just wondering if this is roughly analogous to an expert witness that might be played by a court very different in california the code allows the evans code under seven thirty allows for the appointment of an expert who will advise the court who actually is the court's expert and that's what's the difference here if the court were to appoint a custody valuate and in fact that's exactly what great thing is about is that that psychologist was appointed under the evidence code to advise the court to collect information about the psychological situation between the two parties and then make a recommendation between the two that's the difference between an expert and the attorney and that's i think the important part is that the truth is not an expert the attorney is just someone who gathers that  first of all it's clear from both family code thirty one fifty one that mr acevedo's role in the custody dispute was to present factual information to the judge who was deciding these her role was t garner information both favorable and unfavorable to align across its desire to remain with her mother present that information to a court so the judge however she would present it either through witnesses both lay witnesses missing across to the trial judge the trial judge can make the appropriate determination about custody for that reason we have the howard case in california which provides for quite educational community under such circumstances the judicial mutiny is necessary for mr acevedo to promote uninhibited an independent decision making on her part as she feels for statutory obligations under family code thirty one fifty want to protect the attorney when he or she is engaged in fact the fact gathering process for the court and in reporting all of the information that they're overburdened court typically needs to know when making the very important custody determination that the courts may the court appointed attorney must be able to perform his or her job without worry burden on the legal profession would be significant i would submit that many of the lawyers that accept appointments to represent the best interest of the child in the family code thirty one fifty fifty one would be reluctant to accept his appointment should there be malpractise of at least potential for malpractise suits many years down the line and create all sorts of mischief with the insurance carriers who cover these lawyers and it would be expensive for the lawyers to defend these lawsuits many years down the line after this is memories of faded documents are  guardians of litum and attorneys for children in child abuse cases should be protected and that comes from a horrendous case out of minnesota which is very very different and distinguishable from the case before this court if the court will confused by those words in terms of attorneys protecting or involved in child protection cases again the statutes are clear in california there is no immunity even for dependency matters which would be what like that  was and i think that's the important distinction as far as the legal profession and a burden on the legal profession of course only family law is probably one of the highest areas malpractise insurance and also  potential of being sued so i don't think that's going to change i think that the the fact is that attorneys jump at these opportunities they are appointed on a routine basis in california to represent children in these cases and it will not have a negative impact a