the next case for argument is caitlin webb at all versus chelsea smith  please the court my name is well you can go and i represent the web and my family's in a lawsuit against the department of human services and various individuals working for them we have two types of claims one for procedural deeper to process  coming statute is unconstitutional as it's written so on the issue of procedural and it's a procedural due process challenge the issue is that whether or not the state can take in the web's case your children for twenty eight dollars days without having a hearing or in the ways case and as is permissible under the statute up to twelve days without having given the parents a chance to be heard  sued are responsible for the what they do because the delay well first of all you've got a set of regulations and supervisory liability well  conduct where in creating helping to create regulations where children can be held for up to twelve days and as the complaint alleges and as happened to miss webb they frequently exceed the twelve day period then finally on the caseworkers that's a little bit more interesting of an analysis i think on that the judge had let them out because circuits that we've sided if you look at the cases that are sided what they focuses on focus on is when the hearing began not case what is it here that well what is workers did or didn't do that they could have done but led to a constitutional violation assuming there was well what they did is they seized the children and they didn't see that  hearing occur within a timely manner twenty eight days from this web but i'm not sure that they had the ability to do it and one of the things that makes me really with your claim to get to judge arnold's point is why not sue the lawyer who handled it what the i mean the thing is this social workers presented the case and then i think the lawyer took like what six hundred and seventy eight days before filing at least with respect to one of them i think what's the web's case in court so why not go after the lawyers rather than social workers well for one thing the social worker still involved in that process she knew when she did that affidavit that miss webb was going to be out inside of five days she knew that the only basis for these children being see sed was that process but the other thing is that if they know that their basis for seige will well but in any band that's a different claim from the claim against them for not getting the hearing going and the violation and of itself because the question is whether what they did or didn't do violated due process as required by the th amendment whether what they did or didn't do violated the arkansas statute right bit agree with that ok i would agree with that point seems a bit lost well i mean that the issue we're focusing in on is whether or not there was a constitutionally permissible bill a and having a hearing and we don't think that a twenty eight day or twelve day delay constitutionally permissible the way now if you look i mean one argument you're raising here that i'd like to address is that you're kind of saying well the caseworker what can they do you know it's you know they're helpless and that seizure of a person the defendants tried to say well it's the court system it's not us they've got a we'll call policy they're not calling people timely not our fault and what the th circuit said is that you can't hide behind the court having a will call  y quote by delegating the responsibility of taking arrestees problem for court in other words if you see kids ex parte without giving the parents a chance to object and have a hearing then you've got an obligation to get that set before court and have a hearing in other words if the judge as he did in this case bumped miss webb's hearing they should have been objecting the caseworker is still the caseworker on that case they should have been doing something they have been getting with their attorney to see that something got done suppose though that they filed within two days they filed within two days the attorneys did their job that social workers did their job and then we still have a twenty eight a day delay the court just doesn't do its job well i don't we do bring that would you be making the same crime with the social workers be responsible responsible i think that they could go to him to get here before a different judge i think they could see a writ of mandamus from the arkansas supreme court i think there are things that they can do to see that this gets taken care of and it's just i mean that's such an outlier i mean i mean it's conceivable such a thing would happen but it is very difficult for me to believe that if the state goes to the state court judge and says look you're violating this kid's in this family's constitutional right and you know you got to do something you've got to set a hearing now it's just very difficult for me to believe that that's actually going to happen and it's certainly not the situation in this case counsel i want to ask a follow up question is are the jurisdictional arguments i think that the district court kind of struggle with them which is why you have the reconsideration order i think in the end the district court might have gotten every jurisdictional issue wrong and one of them affects you which is the injunctive relief in particular can you explain to me how your client had standing asked to file this you have a few different ways one is that if you have a ongoing unconstitutional policy that violates in the individual rely individual's rights they can see you cleared or really the next issue is that in this is a class action where you have class allegations brought the the requirements of standing are relaxed and i think the best examples of that not actually cited in my brief i just found it recently was county riverside versus happened to take away their standing standing is where you didn't have you didn't have the standing in the st place mootness the standing in the time frame and my problem is when you file this action on behalf of the plaintiffs they already had their kids back it be different and we'd be talking about us if you file while their kids were being held and then then they were returned and my response to that is two things one is i don't get site robi where you very often but capable of repetition yet avoiding were you and i think the standard there actually was better in this case than an inroad the way the problem you have there though and i don't want to belabor this is that that applies to move ness not standing so you're still kind of stuck standing there really aren't exceptions and then the last issue is that we have mended our complyin t but we amended to allege chilling effect for the ladies in that you have increased likelihood of encounters with the h s once you have one they had an adult child who hated may who become adults who have made false allegations they want to maintain the relationship but they've got to worry about losing their children for you know twelve days a month whatever again if this continues so we demanded to comply to allege possible doctrine and rd the arkansas statutes are not unconstitutional the appellant's due process rights were not violated by the caseworkers because they did not have the authority to schedule post deprivations so how does how does the plaintiffs in this case get relief if this is happening continuously and i don't know that that's not a story an allegation here but it's happening you seem to suggest this happening all the time out of the plaintiffs who have their constitutional rights deprived how do they get relief here if they can't go after the circuit court well they well my clients did what they're supposed to do they file affidavits within two days of the removal of the children from the parents  other reasons for delay he would have to look at the other reasons for the delay of the host deprivation hearing the two days was opt in they had no further involvement in the procedure of the case at the district court correctly hero that the caseworkers were not for the delay and alleged violations of due process it was the juvenile court not the not the case workers that had the authority to set the here the district court correctly looked whether the caseworkers properly initiated judicial proceedings after the children were with the district court correctly found that the caseworkers properly initiated the court jailed where to begin with for contempt and ordered v h s to seize her daughter because there was not an appropriate caregiver she didn't have a duty to follow up with a lawyer and make sure that the the complaint or or that action was initiated in arkansas courts or could work her duty which was discharge was that she had to file the affidavit with the reasonable suspicion that there is a safety in the health of the children was in jeopardy or in danger court proceeding nor was she a client in the state court proceedings the case was adjudicated from the testimony and the exhibits the statements of the witnesses in the statement of counsel in the juvenile court a probable cause hearing so there was we have an adjudication order at that time the district court correctly found that the caseworker was not the party responsible for the delays the district court correctly found that there was an adjudication order that was entered on july th and that that order was appealable pursuant to arkansas appellate procedure the facts in the lady's case are similar to that in the web two days after the children were removed the caseworker sign affidavit stating that the health and safety of the children was in danger and she discharged her duty at that time at that point on the same day d h asked petition for emergency custody of the children claim of no probable cause was jute fully adjudicated at that probable cause hearing by the juvenile court and it was found that there was was probable cause at the time of removal and that there were emergency conditions a here it requires a state court judgment to have caused the entry and here the entry is all the things we've been discussing it's the fact that at least the legit entry right it's the fact that they were removed from the home that they falsified falsified evidence if anything once the children were returned you know that's sort of alleviated the entry and the final judgement sort of well there wasn't a final judgment that the final adjudication alleviated the entry so i don't know how the state as a judgement for the record film and it wasn't a final judgment that's the other problem i have with the the whole reason for record feldman is to avoid an appeal in federal court from a state court decision and this adjudication from what i understand is not appealable this is not a final judgment either so there's really two problems one is the arm didn't come from the state court so called judgement the other is that it wasn't a judgment at all ok the st thing is that the the decision that was the state court decision was appealable that was  itself and so they're claiming that they were injured from that for the delay in the constitution and the rocker feldman the district was correct because it cited precedent that r filming doctrine is confined to cases brought by state court losers complaining of state court decisions rendered before the federal court proceedings commenced so therefore we had the state court decisions we had federal court lawsuit was but let me ask the question one more time to try to try to get this they're not complaining about something that happened with respect to the judge and i don't read this complaint as this judgment is the reason why we were harmed i don't read any of their allegations to be about that i read their allegations to be i was harmed because these kids were removed and they didn't work fast enough maybe the judicial system didn't work fast not the social workers the lawyers didn't work fast enough whatever but i don't inle you can cite to me some harm from that state court judgment they're complaining about i don't think the record feldman doctrine applies right i understand your honor the appellants are alleging that the children were taken into custody without probable them i have a factual question i just want to real quick i didn't ask that this is my fault i didn't ask the right question on the final adjudication my understanding and maybe i'm wrong about this but my reading the record indicated that the were dismissed at the apartments request that there was no final adjudication and feel free to tell me i'm wrong about that but i just want to i want to be sure because i have a notation on my notes that suggests that right it's a little bit  emphasize when the cases were actually dismissed is because that's when you have a final conclusion of that case and was it then dismissed by the apartment or it was dismissed on for affirming the decision is that the district court was correct in setting in not setting a bright line rule regarding promptness of scheduling the probable cause hearing the burden of proof was on the app appellants as the parties challenging legislation and improving its on on constitutionality and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the statutes constitutionality and there is a strong presumption that these statutes are constitutional  unconstitutional some court would have to hold it there are no circumstances under which the application of the statute satisfy the th and the yes and that argument that not really feldman you are correct about the injuries not from the state court order also believe he's misunderstanding something but there's two orders kinds of orders in this case one probable cause in the case that we cited johnston worse arkansas d h s that is not an appealable order it's not a final or the other case the other kind of order was a dismissal without prejudice so we're not state court losers th so her involvement was not done also when she filled out that affidavit stating that the kid needed to be taken into custody through an ex parte order she knew that our client would be released the next monday the as of that next monday the next business day before court there wouldn't be any need for them to keep custody of that child they should have just returned the child to the mother rather than go through that process furthermore she had an obligation she had an a vit that she knew was incorrect that she did not correct with the court for a period of about twenty days which is a significant problem when you're holding somebody's child hostage  think the claims against supervisors could survive even if the claims against the case workers fail so why would the supervisory claim survived if the underlying claims against caseworkers w