my name is sandra when i represent the petitioner now in this matter section three dash five of the only sex offender registration act allows a juvenile adjudicated offender to petition the court for removal from the registration if it proves among other things that they no longer that they pose no risk to the community by a preponderance of the evidence the crux of the argument this afternoon is that a finding of no risk is simply not possible and a strict interpretation requiring no risk strips this statute of its legislative intent in this case we're able to look at the legislative intent to find out what that purpose is by looking at the legislative history and specifically the debates the legislature likelihood of re offending further legislator indicated that they one of the judiciary to have discretion in these cases as opposed to the previous i'm harsh bright line rule unfortunately the implementation of a no risk standard takes away discretion and inadvertently imposes that bright line rule they didn't really discuss the specifics of no arrests really they were discussing what they want to statue to accomplish and but you're correct on there was no discussion of should we use no rush to something else conversation it doesn't go with what the legislator was stating about what the intent of the statute was so i think in interpret in the statute even though no risk is playing we can look past that to see does it meet the legislators  the state's expert went on further and said the lowest possible risk and said unequivocally a finding of no risk is not possible she further went on to say that no risk isn't possible because there's a general risk at least a risk for the general population so in this case an expert will never find anything lower than low risk and the reason that's important is because while the states can argue there are several elements for the court to consider in these cases the expert is the first one listed in it's even though it doesn't say it in this case it was given the most weight we know it was given the most weight because when the court both experts found him to be low risk the court is unwilling to give that statutory direction a lesser meaning so while there may be other elements to consider the court clearly focused on this element of expert what the experts  the states also going to come up and say that the petitioner isn't required to provide expert opinions and they're going to cite in regroup a city which with a court held you don't have to provide a expert opinion and that case the court was really focusing on whether or not the court was a part of paid for a person's expert opinion they held that you did not have to do it and that because the court didn't have to pay for the person and have to submit an expert but in giving their decision as why they denied the petition in that case one of the reasons that uses that they did present an expert bit so it's kind of an adult what sort do i presume an expert opinion that says i'm low risk even though i have to prove no risk or do i not present an expert opinion and then the court can use that against me for not presenting an expert opinion so in this case like i said well there's other elements to it that the court is to consider that no risk in nature is never going to be given by an expert they simply can't do it and they won't do it again no risk is unequivocal impossible so in this case there's never been a reviewing court to interpret or give direction on how lower courts are to interpret this data so in this case we're asking the court provide an provide direction on how the circuit courts are to interpret this because if it stays it is the statute becomes frankly useless in just one brief additional topic the circuit court within its order without express the saying it tended to agree specifically the court held the statute clearly or priors the court to make a finding that the applicant presents no risk to the community the court must give that language meaning no clearly means something different than what the port believes counsel's argument that it's very difficult if not impossible burden to be persuasive however that is a cry to change the legislation this court declines to do so so in this case again we have no other reviewing court order to look at to have interpret this statute so again we're asking this court to  wasn't directly addressed but the court did alleging that the petitioner i'm lacked credibility specifically the court held that is testimony appeared to be well over a person and inconsistent w challenged is it well rehearsed or is it inconsistent those two things don't seem to jive if something's what hearst it's going to be well our person consistent adversely if it's not lower hurst is it inconsistent so people like represent not necessarily prick the court didn't find that guy we obviously don't agree with that assessment that's one of the things you challenge our second issue so the first issue is no risk is impossible the second issue is even looking at the exit of existing factors the court heir to denying a petition to terminate in this case when you look at all the factors the evidence that was provided like i mentioned to experts both experts one for the petitioner one for the state both agreed  unequivocal stated lowest possible risk to the community and they both agree that he should be removed from the sex offender registry there was also an additional witness who was the a counselor in therapist for the petitioner for several years who testified that he was no risk to the community other than that there was no evidence presented that indicated otherwise so in looking at the legislative intent to review the petitioners compliance with services as well as is likely to respond and looking at the history of compliance with services their reports use the word exemplary there was no evidence indicating otherwise that the petitioner wasn't did everything he was asked to do in their brief the state even concedes that point and says to his credit the petitioner did everything he was asked to do so as far as that issue goes there's no question no evidence even counting as far as again a likelihood to re offend all we have  history and since this since this incident i'm no criminal history no disciplinary problem problems and school successfully graduate from high school is now on college there is no other problems again we understand that the actions that gave rise to this are very serious and we don't minimize that but in looking at legislative intent and looking how someone moves past this i don't think there was any evidence indicating anything other than successfully complied with all the services and there's no evidence indicating that he is likely to reoffend so in this case we're asking this court to reverse hopefully i'll be able to perfectly present the argument to this court this court this case began when by his own admission respondent repeatedly molested two little girls between the ages of two and he been a just a few years old where he would have been spending a long time in prison he said he did this because they were just there they were it was easy and if you could get away with it  this case came about from his request to be removed from sex offender registration made just a couple of months after he finished probation i think he was about nineteen and  he's raised two issues one is that requiring no assigning that a person be pose no risk to the community is impossible since the most any psychologist would say is that it's a low risk and the second issue is that the trial court's decision is manifestly erroneous because both the psychologist reports say that they responded is unlikely to be a risk to the community but both of these arguments fail for the same reason they look only to the reports the psychologist now there are statutes which rely solely on a psychologist records in order to determine whether a person is at risk to community the sexually dangerous persons act comes to mind but this is not a case where the statute deals with just that this statute has seventy factors that mean two things one regardless of the fact that a psychologist might be reluctant to say someone is at no risk to the community that doesn't mean that the statute can't be understood and forced as written since there are six other factors to consider trout court takes all of them into consideration to determine whether someone's at no risk and to this means that even though both psychologists reports consider the defendant to be at low risk that doesn't mean that i think if you couple a very low risk to re affair and the other six factors also tend towards letting taking the person off this list then i think that absolutely it can they can reach that the question here though is i strongly disagree was coun opinion that there's nothing to support those other six factors in this case and i strongly urge this court to read those psychological with poor because even though they come to an ultimate conclusion of loneliness they say things like you soon post control this question above well under many situations he can control a simple houses under stress he may not be able to do so now this spent weeks if not months grooming these children kept saying report this it's imperative that he not be in the presence of young children so look focus on manifest weight because i agree with you just a couple knows pretty easy to understand understand and i think because you can have a finding  no risk to the community so those factors are the first one is the risk assessment now i just can't buy the because risk assessment is number one and  the seven this is the most important factor nor can i buy the fact that because this route but mentions it first it's the most important factor the traffic court said he reviewed the testimony of the witnesses the arguments of the counsel all back to number two is the sex offender history now again although it was responded only has one diction he repeatedly molested these prosecutors for months and again if we didn't know whether the parents were ready to accept an apology that doesn't matter if you're sorry you say it i mean it's like shifting the burden to  the mental physical educational and social history he's going to college yes a job yes a place to live victim impact statements he's broke my heart  they are incredibly relevant to this case respondent ripped apart these two families these children remain frightened of teenagers afraid to go to a friend's birthday party because it might be teenage boys they're afraid of accompanying your brother to a football game because it might be teenage boys there the pyramids are free to put these children out of their sight they rarely socialize with anybody else because they don't trust people anymore they moved because the move to look across the street and see the house where this kid lived they just couldn't deal with they believe that they were spotted still immature and that he needs more one of the parents says that the that this kid is very adept at putting on a facade as a good popular and studious boy but that this was just a front for the horrible sexual acts on m important if he's credible and as you noted he found just this youngman to lack credibility he noted that his testimony consisted of inconsistency is he well we appear to be less than forthright this i think is crucial virtually all the information that he reveal was only after that information was first revealed by somebody else the first child says this happened to me and he says well and then she says no years by courts by psychologists by scientists that the minds of teenagers and young adults are different they are less mature their character is not as well formed as an adult their traits are less fix that's what we're dealing with right now all the state is asking all these parents are asking is let us find and come back in a few years when he's truly mature well and when it might matter that he's on the system right now just briefly touch on a few of the things the council brought up you know she mentioned that no one is saying he should for the rest of his life on the registry but that's exactly what's going to happen absent agreement or a change in the interpretation of the statu e we discussed this at length with in the brief and in through the transcript realistically nothing's going to change in ten years as for i mean unless it's for the worst hypothetical you know there's  to be low risk successful completion of services everything is going to say it were exactly the same if you look at the factors we have a first factor i'm not i don't mean to say for the most important because it's listed first i mean it was clearly the most important in this case the court decided that within its conclusion the experts found lower risk i'm finding lower s i can't give that word in a different meaning but if you look at the second element the history there is no other criminal or disciplinary history for this proficiency other than this incident evidence of the juvenile delinquent rehabilitation again they used the word exemplary there's been no evidence for anything other th was presented by anyone in a negative light now this regard we found out that he successfully completed school never failed a classes currently in college has a job again never been in trouble the victim impact statements are another element obviously that's something for the court to consider and there are you know presented by the victim's families and so that's well taken however if you look at the victim impact statements nothing in them with addresses his rehabilitation and how the petitioner is grown from this and then any other factor seemed relevant this would just go back to the legislative intent where they specifically discuss taking juveniles office registry when they're preparing for college in their first jobs and things of that nature so that's something for the court to consider as well  but in its in its opinion the circuit court noted that the substantial progress the petitioner made from those initial comments seven or eight years ago to the hearing last december and noted that obviously you know through those counseling and therapy things have progressed now the vast majority of statements cited by the state in their brief and here today argument were statements the petitioner made back then before the conviction the basis of the state arguments are today in essence attempting to retry the petitioner for these crimes but that's not the intent of the statute the intent is to look out he's completed in progress with those services and it's likelihood of rehabilitation or likelihood of recommit a crime so again i mean i've restated myself a couple different times but all of the evidence that presented was presented at this hearing there was nothing that indicated he was a likelihood to recommit a crime or was  so again we had asked respectfully that this case be reversed and i mean you have any other questions for me this afternoon thank you