establish a federal constitutional right we got access to do the court records in this particular matter the only case that even seem to address whether or not there was any type of right to juvenile records is it all this case with the two thousand and three case the th circuit per curiam decision that really was only it was very brief and not one sided to any federal constitutional law the only item that cited to a state actor in its opinion so there was very little information given in that case that particular case involved a private law firm that was retained by the state or in that case a county a should say public entity to represent their interest in a lawsuit that was filed by mr specifically held any right constitutional federal constitutional right was available to them for the juvenile court records if you look to consolidate as the factual scenario there it's a little bit different than ours in there there was  offer like ours however that particular case was a lawsuit that was filed after the actual file because it appeared that the law firm represented the county that case got result this it whatever it  happened and then subsequently there was a lot of lawsuits filed so the questions were little bit different there the question became whether or not there was a state actor and then there was any other issues involved and the court just did not analyze this to make a that without citing any case this is really an access case this is not a privacy case because when you look at what the a values are actually arguing here you're arguing that they had a constitutional right was violated to the access of the documents which addresses the availability of confidential information to her these days in civil litigation and i'm wondering whether that has any application here but we believe that it does when you look necessarily say that they're the same they're certainly related i know one reports to the other as a lower energy airport reports of the state but the key predicts key issue there is that the documents are asked to prepared by the county so when you look at it the documents are being prepared by the clients of both the county council and of my clients because we represent them so we believe that access to them is appropriate court asked if  asked us to d respond to ticket or question whether or not a party who received records that were acting assessed by another in perceived violation of a twenty seven dollars that was a constitutional right violation and our answer the argument is as is stayed at the moment pending the outcome i believe of this particular case but it's very important that none of those cases found that there was a constitutional right that  it's from this it and the other thing is it's for your client it's documents that were prepared by your client so it's not a situation where your opinion documents from a rd party or something of that nature that's not what we're talking about and i'm assuming the office of county council also it all raises its own of the c s a in conjunction with all of its investigations and would routinely have access to this type of information and render it legal advice supreme court case nor any other circuit case that identified a juvenile court that's a true or a right not to obtain into the whole record so we do believe that the court strain was strange in the this particular matter in gonzales they use such terms a structure of the opinion and unspoken analysis in their in their discussion which we believe it was a little a little too broad in their review the question is whether or not gonzales declare that juvenile records are entitled to the same protection well clearly i believe it did and that this court determined looking time soon what it sends it back and says you know if there were a constitutional violation then you're entitled to damages but that's a far cry from saying we recognize that such a constitutional right how can you distinguish the three district court cases in the six or eight opinion that comes out the other way well we did that in our brief ishmael is a case about the medical records and  whether and whether the balancing test should be applied on those medical records rigsby different significantly because they express lee said they are not addressing the disclosure of juvenile court records to rd parties so we distinguish those and if you were to look at the reply briefs you will notice those distinctions were not addressed because they don't they don't apply it's always was so clear that there was a constitutional violation so that's why they need only say we've already three pound one when they say because tensor improperly and access to juvenile court file we need not reach the question of whether the use later in the depositions was of additionally a constitutional violation it is as judge  they're in the course of a juvenile for speeding and that's what the twenty seven days are quite clearly and that's why it says other than that it talks about you have to be a participating attorney in an active investigation and that is not the facts of th record but there's a constitutional right to that privacy unless there is a court order where are we going to find that in the constitution i mean are you you're i mean is that we have to wrap up the california statute in the constitutional right confidentiality and for all the talk of the statute has changed the confidentiality of vision has never changed the settled expectation of privacy giving rise to a constitutional right is not new there's also the case of a carl in different states i'm that may be the case of different states however please understand that the entirety of the juvenile dependency system is is all derived from katha and that is where you get these confidentiality provisions that is where you get these mandated reporters identities or are kept so i would imagine if i went to all the other states that i would find the exact same language because it's all derived from captain so no i expect that they would have settled expectation of privacy as well but i've done that just as just each she has i'm sorry just as the dissenting judge gonzales has done where he cites the law on settled expectations of privacy and there are other cases karla's vs city of chino hills about an inmate who  supposed to get a phone call and he didn't get a phone call and the court found in the th circuit found that had elevated to a fundamental liberty interest for him to get a phone call here we're talking about  what goes in these records please understand i don't know if any of your honors adult juvenile and it's the system but i have a long time and what goes in those records is they do a social background with these parents and these people are talking about their sex life their mental health history their medical history they could be talking about such things as being gang raped as a minor so these these are simple life whether dentist pulled your will the two there you had a some minor surgery these are very intimate items of information that deserve the protection and well you need to step through because in all instances where there might be private information there may be circumstances where others are entitled to obtain it and like a lawsuit that's understandable but that's why we have a notice provision in the statute and that's why we can't we could not appeal the denial of the th amendment part of this decision i assure you we will come back if that is not put in because that is clear is day and that is part of the expectation that california residents have since one thousand nine hundred and sixty one but the question is whether created a federal constitutional right kid can you help answer my question about section eighty tw if you'll notice the j i part it specifies who is talking about it is talking about as you indicated people licensed by the state but then what what else besides being licensed by the state resource  approval authorized staff and played by the state department of social services as necessary to inspect improve our license and monitor community care facilities and and then it sounds like when they're referring to civil they're referring to these cases of someone being fired for having injured a child in foster care but absolutely nothing in that provision says if you don't have to go to court and get it if you can get access to the statute is lengthy i understand the position is even in that situation both for lawyers for the defense to get access to the information that would have to do about ending a co flipper here either they have to get a court order in order to look at it repairing their civil litigation or they don't so the does this is this provide an exception to the court order because otherwise the court could order disclosure to any number of people presumably if it is otherwise satisfied that the information is necessary and overrides the statutory right you're  want to reserve three minutes after going through that and beginning on but i'm not being slippery you brought up this provision of the statute during the course of this argument i'm trying to now find out because my case does not involve state department social services research family approval if it does state that this is people entitle to inspect it has nothing about not obtaining a court order to use it in separate litigation that absolutely the statute says cannot access nor inspect and they did they allegations in the complaint contained in the paragraph six thousand and sixty through sixty nine discuss taken as true the inspection of these documents the participation in a teen in them with gender the principles of boys v benton about in table participation does not require an individual act constitute a constitutional rights violation all of that applies  again it indicates the qualified immunity doctrine recognizes that officials can act without fear of harassing the patient only if they reasonably can anticipate when their conduct may give rise to  government worker knowing that they cannot engage in in that case it was removal of a child based merely on emotional bs game can then say that it's ok under under constitutional law to council in order to solicit legal advice yes because that is an active juvenile proceeding the investigative part of it the juvenile with child welfare agencies are considered an arm of the cork so yes i mean that's also i was also in documents are just but there is an exception that permits county council to look at that information without a court order if there's an ongoing investigation correct the juvenile and see neglect abuse and that's the statute it's very clear want but you know we get two minutes or very quickly your honor we believe mr powell is incorrect when he talks about the th amendment up procedural due process rights and we cited that in our brief but