there which the district court not only recognize that parents may sue and their representative capacity s already in but also the parents may not do so pro se but these principles are fundamentally at odds with one another if related question is can we live of some of the a circuit opinions we are bound by previous panels decisions your honor we can in this case consider the constitutional arguments the thurgood's that have addressed this matter her but this cannot be the case when parents are allowed to proceed in other cases in the pro se capacity in particular the th circuit in the last drop in two thousand and ten did allow an indigent mother to proceed motion should be allowed by the parents pro so called soul that represented the charles before and after the motion so it was just a minor part of the proceeding the rationale seemed to be that there was no risk of prejudice to the child isn't that a difference are there other we have here i guess your honor is a different scenario in so far as it was in the ocean to amend the judgment or the underlying principle that they are the parent the indigent mother with not seeking to represent her child but merely to present as a personal representative where their minor child and courts have long recognized and have been hesitant to challenge brant all right in two thousand the supreme court in troxel recognized that periods have a fundamental right decisions regarding the care custody and control of their children and that vision yes your honor but the fundamental principles still stands that there is this right to control the child in so far as medical decisions are made insofar as what decision what school a child attends so this fundamental right harassment that she has received as a result of her treatment in the classroom and so here even if she can obtain a videotape footage that footage may not be available if perhaps internet access d goes out or  because no one in our clinic is able to practice in the state of nebraska and as an appellate clinic we are not suited to represent individuals in the district court at this present time but even even more so the district court has access to financial means to obtain an attorney and not even if this constitutional right which we urge this court to consider is not a valid under it's section one hundred and sixteen dollars of the united states code individual interpretation but as a minor cannot issue subpoenas ocker on she can not go to depositions and she cannot engage in discovery because she is unable to do so as a minor child and therefore she can not in the order that we're reviewing where seventeen cites the grave this case the same one they cited why don't we presume that the district court knew about those o i think we may have lost counsel for a moment here is that after listing these factors the better repeated in all your cases like patterson it says these factors are by no means an exclusive checklist so clearly while it's inappropriate for the district court to have some inquiry into the spring prove the case in determining whether counsel would be useful you pointed it your honor it was an abuse of discretion also consider to determine the appointment of council the district court clearly abused its discretion by denying its counsel in this case she has already been denied access to the courts for over three years and cannot be the case that a child voice left until the age of majority and certainly cannot be the case that access to the federal courthouse depends solely on whether or not a parent can afford to keep counsel for their right or children if your honour's have no further questions the