the pleadings should be held to a less stringent standard just her first attorney as a pro bono will turn is that you know this appeal had been going on for a while until i got involved as well the case the facts are undisputed that appellant was a biologically related  with significant longstanding bonded family relationship of over seven years before these events occurred she was also designated by the county as a dozen prospective adoptive parents across the five years prior to these events of this case and she had an adoption petition pending for months before the children were fraudulent removed from her on some guise of respite care the defense characterized her as a merely as a foster parent or contractual caregiver but it's well established family unit protections for due process protections under the fourteenth amendment for those rights also the adoptions and safe families act of forty two us three six and these five identified her as a pre adoptive relative to this present date in noticed motion with a with affidavit supporting the reasons why for removal and then a court order for my california  approximately five months of three months later she then filed proceedings under a three eighty eight which was different than what should have been done in the adoption process or that the state of california gives her a lot of avenues for redress for not having done this to begin with right correct the mandatory statutory duty that the county had was to provide that hearing to her before they took the children so like in may versus county of san bernardino where they took the child without exigent circumstances here they took the child without a court order at all doesn't campbell make it very clear that it's not clearly established that well the if you look at the statutes themselves eighty seven zero four and forty two u s c six seventy five what they're talking about at that point in time is the status family relationships and the whole intent of those statutes work to provide security to family units the cases of the more vers cleveland back in the seventy's indicated that frankly it's not just a husband and wife or a mother and father it's more than that it's the family unit that's a tradition in our society that's been a longstanding you know that you're not to me this thing turns on campbell then your argument turns on it because campbell says that apart from prison regulations no state statute is going to create a federally protected liberty interest and we said that well i recognize that's what campbell may say your honor but the fact you know we're stuck with it whether it's right wrong or indifferent i believe that actually the safe families act comes in in one nine hundred ninety seven the whole process of adoption was is a big issue in our country that act comes into effect and identifies that we need to preserve not just mother father relationships but and child relationships but the relationship such as a prospective adopt don't believe that no mullins to saying that just because you're a biological parent grandparent or grandparent just because you have that biological link doesn't automatically make you and your situation in the course of doing pointed out  adoptive parents have no liberty i disagree ron i believe that that case is essentially saying that there wasn't that just the link just the blood doesn't make it what it says is that if you have more it leaves open the fact that you have more than just a blood relationship but a longstanding relationship such as seven years this case then that's a family unit we're saying that our relatives that they're you have someone living with you for seven years you take care of them you're the only parent that albert ever is c seventy five b their wiles with the w and i code section three sixty six point two five be there to allow that a relative have a preference and have their petition before him this is the person who had a petition for adoption process by the an attorney provided to the minimal bit of melody in miers and they knew about it and then they just decided at some point time to decide to drop the process because they decided long long foster care would be the grandparents who were not he was adopted to approximately a year after the taking of the child and that's why my client's three hundred eight petitions with the with the juvenile court were then essentially dropped because of the fact that that adoption went through she should have had notice of that process and of say five families actually she should have had an opportunity to have her own petition taken care of before hand but as a result of that process the court said it's moot because the child's would be amended that complete to be amended to a storm and no action but it does identify that a policy and practice essentially to avoid the statutory mandatory duties that are provided to protect people such as my client and i'll reserve my move last minute upon lodging not filing whole bunch of things that we don't even hear that's correct there are documents referenced in the opinion that are not me part of the record on appeal which wou  grandparents but the record sounded i don't think that's quite what you signed she's saying she has rights it may be for a court to determine who has greater rights or who's the more appropriate adoptive parent but she was not simply some relative with a biological connection that had never seen this child and came in and said he's mine this is somebody who had a biological connection and had essentially the whole child's existence under her care and custody but there are three essential facts about that relationship i wish to point out to the court the hundred ninety six and the records submitted by or also include letters from her attorney her own attorneys at gibson dunn urging her to complete the adoption and she didn't do it what you're talking about in the complaint or  he papers that are law whatever that means her first amended complaint has exhibits attached to it and in opposition to records she said in its other exhibits the letter from her attorneys urging her to complete the adoption district court she was married and so the second parent was her husband at the critical time here she had been vacillating since one thousand nine hundred sixty about two thousand and one over whether or not to adopt the reason was as stated by her in several decorations and letters submitted in this record that she needed an additional four hundred dollars a month for day care that she had gone through a divorce that off three children with special needs that she had been forced to sell her house and move in with her own father and at the critical moment and this gets to whether the social workers knew that the steps they took to protect these children violated a clearly established liberty interest at that point she tells her social workers my father answers or explanations why it was a good idea at the time but the allegations contained in the complaint aren't those explanations the allegations in the complaint specifically with regard to the rest of care for example that it wasn't issue isn't whether the allegations are true or not the issue for us is whether her relationship was sufficient to give her a protected interest and the explanations offered by the social workers for why they did i'm not sure i understand how that connects up with with the nature of her interest maybe the merits of the decision as to whether to take the children but her interest is what her interest is but the record the well by the appellants own choosing consists of not just pleadings but many many documents that that woman in this case the plaintiffs have in the children what liberty interest what protectable interest to she have in particular to what extent is she entitled to notification and an opportunity to to speak issues you say that she and bring in repeatedly that she had hesitations had doubts not the adoption proceeding that's all well short of saying that she was pushing the children off to somebody else and saying i'm not interested in maintaining a relationship with these children i'm not even interested in maintaining custody because there's no indication that i've ever heard from you or seen in the papers that you didn't intend to maintain custody i'm not i'm not arguing that you're out of the in the liberty interest question seems to me a somewhat different one than the one that you're trying to post at the right time at the beginning maybe i wouldn't have been too late maybe it wouldn't have been moot by the time i spoke out but he sort of appeals as it's moot it's  argument by the appellant then it does limit the record but be that as it may i would agree with the ara judge rymer that under my lens if a grandparent does not automatically have a liberty interest why would a great here the ruling itself plainly in terms relied upon documents which are being referred to is a large mind whatever that word means a large mind which was lodged but not filed isn't part of the record isn't available for appellate review so as far as i know the name just great judge relied upon the funny papers except for the fact that the court has an wasn't vacillating she was going for the adoption they just cut her off before hand and i looked at the net melanson it's a sense that the procedural component of the due process clause protects more than just fundamental rights it protects all liberty interests that are derived from state belief that it needs to be amended further for the different cause of action such as menow that will be done this is the first adjudication of this case and this woman has not had the benefit of legal counsel throughout the proceedings until now that the court find that the due process rights this party was that were established at that point in time by state and federal statutes and case law that there was not only due process rights but also fundamental liberty interest that was involved  by those statutes it's implicit in those statutes that the federal and the state statutes that such rights would be protected by people that need those rights protected from social workers and others with arbitrary governmental interference